Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/19/2001• 0 Planning and Zoning Board 6:30 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Vice Chair: Mika[ Torgerson Phone: 416-7431 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roil Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Gavaldon, Members Meyer and Colton were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Vireta, Vosburg, Bracke, Schlueter, Wray, Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (CONTINUED), May 3 and May 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ01-04— Easement Dedication 3. #11-971 Fort Collins High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 4. #58-98B Poudre High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP (Pulled for Discussion by Staff) 5. #11-97H Rocky Mountain High School —Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 6. #52-82F Poudre School District — South Bus Terminal Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review 7. #13-99A Fossil Creek Wetlands 2"d — Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 8. #39-94 Lind Property — Overall Development Plan Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1 (Less the November 16, 2000 Minutes), 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 2 Project: Poudre High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, P.D.P., File #58-98B Project Description: Request to co -located wireless telecommunications equipment on an existing 102-foot tail ballfield light pole. The proposed equipment is located at 201 North Impala Drive at the Poudre High School baseball field. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He noted that the application is for co -location on an existing structure — a light pole in the Poudre High School ballfield. He added that neighbors expressed concern about the project. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Chairman Gavaldon asked about a previously discussed lawsuit that involved the wireless equipment being dismantled if the light pole were to be dismantled. Planner Grubb replied that he had that condition in writing. This condition was placed upon the application for US West wireless that was approved on April 20, 2000. "Approval of the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, as a co -location on an existing ballfield light fixture, is conditioned on the fact of the ballfield light fixtures remaining as the principal use. If the ballfield light fixtures are to be removed by Poudre School District, whether voluntarily or by court order or for any reason, then.the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment shall be removed as well." Planner Grubb stated that even if the application were approved without this condition and the lights were removed, the principal use would change from lights to wireless equipment. Therefore, the application would no longer be considered a co -location and the applicant would need to reapply. Member Torgerson asked if it would be a non -compliant use if the Code changes. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 3 Planner Grubb replied that wireless equipment is only considered a co -location if it is placed upon a structure that is primarily used for another purpose. If the lights are taken off the pole, that is no longer the principal use. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney suggested adding the condition to an approval motion to clarify the issue. Drew Dewhirst, Cricket Communications, gave the applicant's presentation. He discussed the site selection process for the carrier and stated that the Poudre High School site seemed logical because two other light poles at the ballfield already have wireless equipment on them. The antennas will be located 98 feet up the 102-foot pole and the ground equipment will be located at the base of the pole surrounded by an 8- foot tall chain -link fence and covered by a chain -link 'roof.' Member Craig asked about the size and enclosure of the ground equipment. The construction project manager for Cricket Communications responded that the base station (BTS equipment) would be approximately 15' by 18' and would sit on a non - penetrating steel platform and would be surrounded by 8' chain link fence with a chain link structure over the top. The fencing will be camouflaged with a green mesh. Member Craig asked if this was comparable to existing ground equipment on the other poles. The construction project manger replied that the proposed equipment is a little smaller. Member Craig asked about the structure of the roof. The construction project manger replied that it would probably have about a 3:12 slope allowing balls to roll off. Member Torgerson asked if the BTS units could be located in vaults. The construction manager replied that they could be but would not be for this project. Planner Grubb showed some slides of the site with many'before and after shots. He stated that ground equipment takes up approximately 3,000 square feet. Chairman Gavaldon asked for the neighborhood meeting minutes from the Poudre High School neighborhood meeting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 4 CITIZEN INPUT Julie and Wayne Baumann, 408 S. Impala Drive, stated that they see all the towers on the ballfield. They stated that they never received notice of the project and that when the lights originally went up, the neighbors were told that only one antenna would be installed on the lights and now there are two with this proposal for a third. They stated their opposition of the proposal. Charlotte Plaut, 2510 W. Mulberry Street, stated that her backyard adjoins the Poudre High School ballfield. The wireless equipment makes the light poles seem much more intrusive than they do otherwise would without the equipment. She stated that the primary use of the poles was not to light the field, adding that Poudre had only two lighted games this year. She stated that the primary use of the poles was the telecommunications equipment. She stated that the neighbors were originally told that only one telecommunications tower would be installed and that the City would only allow co -location on existing poles. She stated that their property values went down when the light poles went up. She stated her opposition to the project. George Williams, 212 S. Hollywood Street, stated his opposition to the project and questioned the meaning and intent of the co -location policy. He suggested alternative locations for the equipment, such as along the auditorium wall of the school. He asked what the notification area was for the project. He stated that the 500-foot limit was not appropriate for a structure of this size. He asked what the intent of the co -location policy was and how the School District is involved since either the City or County does not govern it. Mr. Dewhirst stated that the notification radius is 500 feet and that most neighbors seemed to have problems with the light poles themselves rather than the wireless equipment. One suggestion at the neighborhood meeting was to erect a larger tower that could hold all the antennas and take down the light poles. He stated that the Code asks that wireless equipment be co -located on an existing structure and this proposal does that. He stated that the application is in compliance with the Land Use Code. Member Torgerson asked what `stealth technology' is. Mr. Dewhirst replied that that term indicates that the wireless facility tower blends in with the environment in which it exists. Member Torgerson asked if a more linear arrangement could happen on a flagpole or light pole. Mr. Dewhirst replied that was possible. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 5 Member Craig asked if Cricket had considered co -locating with either of the poles that currently house wireless equipment. Mr. Dewhirst replied that the other poles could not structurally handle other antennas. The construction project manager stated that the poles were not designed to carry more than what is already present. Member Craig asked if they had considered using the building, as suggested by one of the neighbors. The construction project manager stated that the building is too low to meet the radio frequency requirements for the signals. Member Craig stated her concern about the land taken up by the ground equipment and asked how big 3,000 square feet is. Planner Grubb stated that 3,000 square feet is about the size of a large single-family home. Member Craig asked about the history of the statement that the neighbors were told regarding only one pole be fitted with wireless equipment. Charlotte Plaut replied that Ken Forest with the Poudre School District made the statement. Member Craig stated her concern over the possibility of that statement being made. Chairman Gavaldon asked if one of the existing poles could be replaced with a stronger pole in order to make it structurally sound enough to allow other carriers. Mr. Dewhirst replied that could be done. Chairman Gavaldon asked what the poles were primarily designed for. The construction project manager replied that the poles were designed to carry large lighting structures and one other lighting array or wireless equipment. Planner Grubb stated that he could not find any information in the file regarding any statements or promises that were made regarding having only one pole with wireless equipment on it. 11 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 6 Member Craig asked about the pole at Rocky Mountain High School that is strong enough to co -locate. Planner Grubb replied that is a lattice tower, which is considerably stronger than the type of poles at Poudre High School. He added that the towers at City Park Ballfield were designed for both lights and wireless telecommunications equipment. They are also much larger than the poles at Poudre. Member Craig asked why the poles at French Field were capable of co -location when they are older than the ones at Poudre. Chairman Gavaldon replied that the French Field lights were designed as stadium lights and they hold more light banks than the poles at Poudre. Member Carpenter asked about the notification process for the project. Planner Grubb replied that the notification radius is 500 feet. Tara Williams, Current Planning, stated that between 400 and 500 letters were sent out, about 75 or 80 of which were returned for incorrect addresses. Member Torgerson asked if we typically get that many letters returned. Ms. Williams replied that we do not and that all three high school lists had numerous returned mailings. All of the lists were from the same applicant. Many of the addresses were apartments, which may change ownership more rapidly than other residences. Mr. Dewhirst stated that the addresses came from the Larimer County Assessor's Office. He stated that some changes could be made to the antennas to make them look better. They did not want to bring up this possibility because the other two carriers in the location were not required to do it and the antennas do not perform as well with this different style. He stated that when antennas are placed inside a structure that looks like a flagpole, the number of antennas drops from 12 to 3. Those antennas do not perform as well. Basically, it would be three antennas flush -mounted to the top of the pole. There would be very little horizontal separation from the end of the antennas to the actual tower. This design would likely eliminate most of the aesthetic concerns the neighbors are expressing. Planner Grubb asked for a picture or spec sheet on those antennas. Mr. Dewhirst replied that he did not have that. This would be a large concession for Cricket. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 7 Tim Heinet, the Radio Frequency Engineer for Cricket, stated that the type of antenna is a dual -pole antenna. It affects the performance negatively, especially to the south. Another site, probably around Drake and Taft Hill, would need to be added to assist with coverage. In order to address the neighbors concerns, they would be willing to flush - mount the antennas to the pole. This would not be considered a stealth design since the antennas would not be hidden completely. There would be about an 8 to 12 inch offset between the antenna and the pole to allow for the mounting brackets. He offered this as a design change for the pole. Member Bemth asked if Wayne and Julie Baumann were on the notification list. He also stated concern over the fact that there may have only been two lighted games at the ballfield this year. He added that the wireless telecommunication issue may need to be discussed at a worksession due to the volume of applications. Ms. Williams stated that Wayne and Julie Baumann; at 408 S. Impala was not on the mailing list and therefore must just be outside the 500-foot radius. Chairman Gavaldon asked Mr. Baumann to point out his home on the site map. He asked Mr. Eckman if the possibility of the 'one antenna' statement ought to be explored. Mr. Eckman replied that he would not recommend looking at the issue. The decision should be made based on the criteria found in the Land Use Code. If it turns out to be a violation of that agreement, it could be enforced later. He also added that the Code allows for other forms of notice other than the 500-foot mailing — posting and publishing. The mailing notice is beyond the legal requirement but is done as a courtesy. The Code states that failure to mail the notices does not affect the validity of the hearing. The legal obligations are covered through the posting and publishing. Member Torgerson asked if it would be alright for the Board to make a motion with a condition that is not necessarily required by the Code. Mr. Eckman replied that since the applicant offered the flush -mount option, there is no problem in posing that as a condition. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Poudre High School Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, P.D.P., File #58-98B, with the conditions that flush -mounted technology as described by the applicant's engineer be implemented and that "Approval of the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, as a co - location on an existing ballfield light fixture, is conditioned on the fact of the ballfield light fixtures remaining as the principal use. If the ballfield light Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 8 fixtures are to be removed by Poudre School District, whether voluntarily or by court order or for any reason, then the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment shall be removed as well." Member Bernth seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaidon stated that he would support the motion because the process was followed. He stated that he empathized with the neighbors' concerns. Member Craig asked staff to look at the flush -mounting, stealth designs for the Fall Land Use Code revisions. She stated concern about the amount of space being taken up by the ground equipment. She asked Ms. Williams to check with the neighbors in attendance to confirm their presence on the mailing list. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Lind Property — Overall Development Plan Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for a 172.61-acre mixed -use residential development. The site is located north of County Road 52 and east of County Road 11. The site is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. He spoke about the Master Street Plan that calls for two north -south collectors. The plan provides those although not in the exact location illustrated on the Master Street Plan. He discussed surrounding development and alternate compliance issues. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the contiguity requirement, which states that a development needs to be contiguous to existing urban development. None of the properties, which are adjacent to this site and could create contiguity, are yet developed. Other issues include the lack of required connections along the Northeast part of the property. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian -only crossing (as opposed to a full bike/vehicle/pedestrian crossing) that would link to the park. Another issue is the alignment of the connections along the west side of the property. One connection aligns with Serramonte Drive and does not meet the spacing requirement but staff requested that it be located this way. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 9 Another connection with one of the streets from the Richard's Lake development is similar. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, gave the applicant's presentation for Centex Homes. He discussed the history and infrastructure of the site and surrounding area. He discussed the transportation plan and street infrastructure noting that surrounding developments are willing and ready to contribute to the road improvement plan. He discussed the request for alternative compliance to reduce the number of connections along the ditch property. The connectivity to the Northeast requires six connections based on 660 feet of spacing. The plan shows two collectors, a local street and two pedestrian connections. The other request for alternative compliance from the spacing requirement will allow the streets to connect with existing streets in adjacent developments. The final issue is a request for a waiver of contiguity. The waiver could be granted based on the completion of a regional trail linkage. Citizen Input Joseph Bleicher, 2509 North County Road 11, spoke on behalf of many of the neighbors along County Road 11 to the southwest of the project. He spoke about traffic impacts along NCR 11 noting specifically an agreement made in 1997 between the neighborhood and the Richards Lake PUD developer. This agreement would provide a bermed frontage road along NCR 11 between Country Club Road and Richards Lake Road. Susie Danford, 2301 North County Road 11, stated that there is little room to walk along the road and that traffic speeds are very high. Mike Solenberger, 3937 Harborwalk Lane, spoke on behalf of the Gillespie ODP project to the south of the Lind Property. He stated the importance of the developers to work together and stated their support of the proposed ODP. Joe Bunton, 2601 North County Road 11, spoke about the heavy traffic along the road. He added that the Master Street Plan does not accurately depict the road. In going north on County Road 11 just prior to Richard's Lake Road, County Road 11 takes a pronounced jog to the left. If that were straightened out, that would alleviate the neighbors' concerns by allowing room for the bermed frontage road. Member Craig asked about the transportation improvements and the timeframe for those improvements as well as why the neighbors were having to deal with so much construction traffic. 11 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 10 Planner Grubb replied that the right-of-way is being obtained to make the improvements. The first phase of the improvements is to widen County Road 11 to include bike lanes. Ultimately, the goal is to provide the frontage road and shift County Road 11 to the east. The City and the neighbors have the common goal to provide the frontage road. The process has not moved beyond that. Member Craig asked about the Gillespie property and what its plans would show in terms of County Road 11 and the frontage road. Planner Grubb replied that without having a final design plan on that section, it cannot be stated for certain that the frontage road is possible. Member Craig asked if the PDP for Gillespie Farm had been submitted. Planner Grubb replied that it had not. Member Craig asked about the failing levels for the short-term and what improvements will be made so the levels become acceptable. Eric Bracke, Streets Department, replied that the developer was required to examine all potential developments, both present and future when completing the traffic study. Vine and Lemay is the key intersection in this area. Interim improvements can be made to this intersection to maintain acceptable levels of service. He added that the build -out in the area probably would not be complete for about 10 years but the study was done in the short term assuming full build -out in order to provide a conservative analysis. He stated that the funds for the intersection improvements would come from Street Oversizing fees. Member Craig stated that Oversizing fees go into one big pot and are doled out from crisis to crisis. She asked if these improvements would have to wait until they got to a 'crisis' point before being funded and sit as an 'F' in the meantime. Mr. Bracke replied that traffic operations is allocated a certain portion of the Oversizing funds every year to do signalization projects. Member Craig stated her concern about this project as well as the Gillespie project: as long as the developer paves one way to and from the development, the other ways do not have to be paved. She expressed concern over a mile -long stretch that was not required to be paved. Planner Grubb and Mr. Bracke replied that the section was not required to be paved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 11 Member Craig asked why we were not requiring them to pave that off -site mile when they would be adding traffic to that road. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, stated that we are only looking at the Overall Development Plan and a more detailed study will be needed for the Project Development Plan. Member Craig asked if funding was present for the Vine and Lemay improvements. Mr. Bracke replied that we will have the funding — it is development related. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant would like to give a rebuttal to the citizen comment. Planner Grubb stated that as County Road 11 transitions from a County Road to a City minor arterial, bike lanes and sidewalks will be required. Jeremy Klop, LSA Associates, gave a rebuttal for the applicant regarding the traffic study completed by the company. He stated that the applicant has been in contact with the Gillespie developers regarding the frontage road issue. This will affect the alignment of the County Road 52 and 11 intersection and the ultimate improvements at that intersection once development occurs. Chairman Gavaldon asked if adequate public facilities and contiguity should be a review criteria at the ODP stage. Planner Grubb replied that staff views the ODP stage as making sure the proposed improvements will ultimately make the project in compliance with our level of service standards. The difficulty with applying the level of service standards at the ODP stage is that we don't know who is going to submit a PDP first. The level of service standards truly get applied at the PDP stage. He suggested looking at the 'big picture' at the ODP level because ODP approvals may not get developed for many years. At the ODP level, we need to be certain that the applicant is being responsible for their portion of the improvements. Chairman Gavaldon again asked about the failing intersections in the traffic impact study. Mr. Bracke replied that this traffic study is somewhat different than other studies. The intersections are now County intersections and the appropriate solutions have not been applied in the traffic study. The appropriate solutions will be decided at the PDP level. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Bracke stated that he is confident that the intersections will not fail once the improvements are made. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the concern is still present on paper and funding is not even in place for some improvements. Mr. Bracke replied that the developers would be required to pay. Taxpayers may be asked to pay for the entire relocation of the Vine and Lemay intersection but intersection improvements will be a development -related expense. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the frontage road and whether or not it would actually occur. Mr. Bracke replied that the idea is a good one and should be decided soon. Mr. Stringer stated that the Gillespie developers have indicated that they will provide the right-of-way to move and straighten County Road 11 to the east. This would then allow room for a frontage road or driveway situation for the houses along the road. Member Torgerson asked about the Vine and Lemay intersection and whether it could be made to work if voters did not approve a tax to move it. Mr. Bracke replied that it could not be done without taking out houses. Mr. Klop stated that there are interim improvements that can be made, without moving houses and without taxpayer dollars, that will accommodate all approved developments as well as the Lind plan. If future developments come in, problems may arise. Member Craig asked about construction vehicles and whether or not a designated route would be defined. Mr. Stringer replied that a deal was not made with the Richard's Lake development in terms of a defined route. Given citizen concerns, a new route may be defined with this project which may be County Road 9. Member Craig asked about County Road 11 improvements and whether or not they would just be on the east side of the road. Mr. Stringer replied that the City has planned to collect money for the interim improvements: 36-foot wide road with two travel lanes and two 6-foot bike lanes. Ultimately, full improvements will be constructed. The interim improvements will not have sidewalks but the ultimate improvement will. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 13 Member Craig asked about the alternative compliance of connectivity request. Planner Grubb replied that the requirement is a spacing of 660 feet. The application shows roads spaced at about 700 or 800 feet. Member Craig stated that the proposal shows three street connections and asked if there would be four if the standard were met. Planner Grubb stated that if they meet the standard, there would be six street connections. He added that the Code does not really provide any guidance on this because it does not say how properties outside the Urban Growth Area should be treated. There was no solid standard that could be applied in this situation. Member Craig asked about the contiguity waiver based on the regional trail. Planner Grubb replied that there would be a grade -separated crossing underneath County Road 52 as well as underneath County Road 11. Staff encouraged this developer to include a section of the trail with their development because they didn't want to exclude this neighborhood from a direct link to the regional trails system. The costs of the improvements can then be spread over three projects rather than two. There is between 700 and 800 feet of trail. Member Craig asked if the Master Plan showed this trail going through this corner and the developers were paying for the two below -grade crossings or if they were providing the City with right-of-way. Planner Grubb replied that the developers would be funding the grade -separated crossings. Pete Wray, Advance Planning, replied that the regional trail is a significant element of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. It is an opportunity to link further development to the northwest. The Plan does show the trail going through a portion of the Lind parcel, through Gillespie, and ultimately diagonally through the entire Mountain Vista Plan. The trail was shown in an approximate location. Member Bernth moved for approval of the request for waiver from the contiguity requirements in accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Staff Report, File #39-94. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 14 Member Craig stated that she was not originally going to support the project. It is positive to see the developers working with one another in a regional basis rather than project by project. She said it was important that this did not set a precedence and infrastructure needs to move up to development rather than having holes without proper infrastructure. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of the plan for alternative compliance in accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Staff Report, File #39-94. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Lind Property Overall Development Plan, File #39-94. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Bernth asked if the road alignment and connectivity issues could be discussed at a worksession in the future. Member Torgerson complimented Jim Sell Design and the connectivity through these developments. Chairman Gavaldon agreed with the development cooperation and stated that he would support the project. He added concern over adequate public facilities. He asked if this development should be penalized or if the next one should be. He complimented the traffic study but mentioned concerns over the failing intersections. Member Craig mentioned concerns over the adequate public facilities, particularly regarding transportation. She stated that Mr. Bracke assured her that the improvements will be made when needed and that development -based funding will be in place for those improvements. The motion was approved 4-0. Other Business The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.