Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/15/20010 0 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Meyer, Bernth, Carpenter, Gaveldon. Members Torgerson and Colton were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Grubb, Stanford, Baker, McCallum, Virata, Wamhoff, Stringer, Moore, Bracke, and Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18, October 19, and November 16, 2000 (Continued) Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ01-02 — Easement Vacation 3. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 4. #18-92F Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, 4Ih Filing, Final 5. #65-93F Harmony Village PUD, Lot 9 — Major Amendment and Replat 6. #56-98J Settler's Green at Rigden Farm — Modification of Standards Discussion Agenda: 7. #29-00 Gillespie Farm — Overall Development Plan Member Bernth moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 2, 3, 4 (with condition outlined in memo dated February 13, 2001), 5, and 6. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 2 Project: Project Description: Recommendation: Gillespie Farm — Overall Development Plan, #29-00 Request for an Overall Development Plan for a 160-acre Mixed -Use Residential Development. The site is located south of County Road 52 and East of County Road 11. The design includes residential development served by an 8-acre park, 2-acre neighborhood center, and a bike trail traversing the site from southeast to northwest. The site is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, City Planner, gave the staff presentation. The range of density for this project ranges from 685 units to 1,090 units. He discussed the project's compliance with the standards for an ODP in the Land Use Code, including transportation, natural features, and storm drainage. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley and Associates, gave the applicant's presentation. She addressed transportation issues, housing types, the neighborhood park, and neighborhood center. Member Carpenter asked about the historic farm. Ms. Ripley replied that it would be evaluated at the PDP level. Mr. Eckman stated that historic properties are not identified as one of the eight criteria for evaluating ODP's. Member Carpenter asked if there would be an option to preserve them at the PDP level. Ms. Ripley replied that there would be an option to preserve them. The PDP will show exactly what will be done with the buildings. Member Craig stated that the ODP step #8 states that the ODP must be consistent with any applicable general development standards, under which are historic and cultural resources. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 3 Planner Grubb stated that the structures are being evaluated currently by the Landmark Preservation Society. Mr. Eckman asked whether or not these structures had been determined to be eligible for registration. Ms. Ripley replied that they have not yet been found to be eligible. Mr. Eckman stated that the standard could not be applied until the structures had indeed been determined to be eligible for historic registration. Ms. Ripley stated that the structures are shown on the plan. Chairman Gavaldon stated that Ms. Ripley's presentation did not mention historic value of any of the structures until questions came up; she also stated that one of the structures was to be destroyed. Ms. Ripley replied that they had not tried to circumvent the historic preservation process, they were simply waiting for more information. Member Carpenter stated that she was somewhat reluctant to approve the ODP when there was no assurance that the structures were not significant. Ms. Ripley stated that they would not be able to go forward without a complete evaluation of the buildings. CITIZEN INPUT Joseph Bleicher, 2509 North County Road 11, spoke on behalf of residents along County Road 11. He stated that neighbors were pleased with the applicant's and the City's efforts to obtain neighborhood input on the ODP. He addressed three main concerns the neighbors have with the current proposal. The first being the maintenance of the integrity and compatibility of the neighborhood. He suggested widening the single-family lots along NCR 11. The second concern involved a bermed frontage road along NCR 11 which is consistent with the earlier agreement between the neighborhood and the developer of the Richard's Lake PUD. This frontage road would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR 11 rather than having to back directly out onto the road. Safety on NCR 11 also remains a concern. The third concern involved the possible retention of the existing farmhouse and outbuildings which are now a neighborhood eyesore. He suggested demolishing or moving the structures closer to the neighborhood center. Mr. Bleicher submitted a letter outlining his comments along with neighborhood signatures. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 4 Howard Tankersly, 1820 Dayton Drive, stated concern over the density of the development because of increased traffic and access to the ODP site. John Reardon, 1913 Richard's Lake Road, stated that traffic and transportation issues were the main concern and these improvements were not shown in the ODP plan. Ms. Ripley stated that they were not prepared to commit to 150-foot wide lots to match those existing on the other side of CR 11. This would be difficult due to the minimum density requirement of 5 units per acre. Tom Dougherty, project developer, stated that they had discussed this issue at length with Mr. Bleicher. The lower numbers of the possible range of density for the LMN zone district would likely be what will be used for this ODP. This would keep the multi -family units at a level which would not impact the less dense single family areas. He added that the frontage road was something they had planned on from the start of the project. Ms. Ripley stated that the density is something dictated by the Land Use Code. Matt Baker, Engineering Department, stated that all of the developments in the area were required to make interim roadway improvements. Mr. Baker worked with the developers to implement a cost -sharing program for the area. The agreement is, in addition to their permanent street requirements, the off -site street improvements must be made through an additional building permit fee on their first phase dwelling units. Some improvements have already been made and once building permit fees begin to be collected, interim improvements to CR 11 will happen fairly quickly. With regard to permanent roadway improvements, there is difficulty in placing even a minor arterial on the existing County Road right-of-way. City staff decided to shift the alignment of the road over to the undeveloped east side of the roadway. He added that the consolidation of the existing driveways into a frontage road concept has merits for the City but it is not necessarily a 'done deal' yet. If the existing farmhouse structures are deemed to have historic value, the frontage road idea may not be feasible as the needed right-of-way to make the improvements would cut directly through the structures. Member Craig asked what is existing and what the plans are for County Road 52 from the corner of North County Road 11 to the east. Mr. Baker replied that CR52 is designated as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. The developer on this property would be required to make those improvements. The road is currently gravel. Member Craig asked if these improvements would be made such that only half the road would be improved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Baker replied that the developer would be required to make the full improvement on their side (i.e. curb, gutter, and sidewalk) and construct the entire 36-foot wide roadway, leaving off the curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the other side. These improvements would only be made to the comer of the property, at which point the road would return to gravel. Member Craig asked if future developments would aid in the improvements on County Road 9 that would bring it down from CR52 to Mountain Vista. Mr. Baker replied that CR9 is a collector -level roadway and collectors are typically serving a development and there are no future plans for development east of the ditch that would require construction of that roadway. Member Craig asked about the status of Country Club Road. Mr. Baker replied that it is in the County and would probably at some point be annexed into the City, at which time it would be improved to meet City standards. Member Criag asked about off -site street improvements for CR52. Mr. Baker replied that the off -site improvements are made depending on traffic volume and where the traffic goes. Developers are required to make the connection from where most of their traffic goes to the nearest fully improved arterial. They are not required to make improvements to every street that every vehicle will travel. Member Craig asked why adequate public facilities are not considered at the Overall Development Plan level. Planning Director Gloss stated that the fourth ODP criteria states that the ODP has to meet Level of Service standards. The level 'D' is unacceptable for an intersection. The full range of adequate public facilities (water, sewer, stormwater, utilities, and fire/emergency/medical) is examined at the PDP level where they would be creating a vested right with that site -specific development plan. The only ODP criteria that relates to public facilities specifically is the fourth one which references the Master Street Plan. Member Craig asked if there is nothing legally that states that adequate public facilities cannot be examined at the ODP stage. Planning Director Gloss reiterated that there is no requirement to examine adequate public facilities at the ODP level because the ODP approval does not give the developer the right to build. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Eckman stated that the ODP standards deal with the transportation and street plan requirements with respect to level of service and make no reference to other adequate public facilities. The intent, therefore, was not to look at adequate public facilities at the ODP stage. Member Craig stated concern over leaving the dirt road. Planner Grubb replied that the dirt road would not necessarily be left. The PDP has not yet been approved. When the PDP is submitted, the Traffic Impact Study will show what level of improvement is needed. Planning Director Gloss stated that the Level of Service can be projected based on future development plans. Member Craig stated concern over the Level of Service standards being in place only at intersections. The section of road that may remain unpaved is not an intersection. She asked if by not requesting that that piece of road be paved, we were allowing unsafe conditions. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations Department, stated that the development is required to provide safe access to an improved arterial. Beyond that, staff has limited ability to deal with traffic volumes. If a person chooses to use a gravel road when other, paved, roads are options, staff cannot impose necessities on them. Member Craig again brought up concern about Level of Service standards applying only to intersections. Mr. Stanford stated that we do have Level of Service standards for roadways. They are located in the Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Generally, the major constraint for any roadway is an intersection. Member Craig asked what the Level of Service for a dirt road would be. Mr. Stanford replied that a road would be paved if that were the acceptable route by which to get the road to the standards of an improved arterial. At this point, however, paving the road by Gillespie Farm is a secondary, not a primary, option. Mr. Eckman stated that the review of ODP's was designed to be somewhat limited. However, there is language which states that ODP's shall be consistent with any applicable general development standard. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 01 February 15, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Stanford stated that a gravel road can flow up to 700 cars per day. Beyond that, the road would need to be paved. The study projects 15-20 cars per hour which would be about 200 over a 24 hour period. This is well under the 700 cars per day. Chairman Gavaldon asked about Country Club Road and its status as a county road. Ruth Rawlins, author of the Traffic Impact Study, replied that for the year 2005, in an effort to do a conservative analysis, she looked at the roadways as they exist today with no improvements. Adequate Levels of Service would still be maintained at the intersection of County Road 11 and Country Club Road. In the year 2020, the distribution of traffic changes because the roadway system changes. At that point, these four study intersections become signalized and we do maintain Levels of Service B and C. Traffic does spread out more, away from Country Club Road, in the long range. Chairman Gavaldon asked if Country Club Road and Mountain Vista would grow at a higher rate than the other roads in the area. Ms. Rawlins replied that they would not. The 2020 projections came from the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan that was based on full build -out of the entire area. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the bermed frontage road and whether or not it would happen. Mr. Baker replied that a final design has not been made so he cannot guarantee it will be there. Some concept designs have been made and the final designs will be made by the PDP level. Citizen input will be sought at 50% and 90% of design completion. Member Craig asked what schools students living in this area would attend. Planner Grubb apologized for not having that answer readily available. A citizen responded that the elementary school is Tavelli, the junior high school is Lincoln, and the high school is Poudre. Member Craig stated that many of these students would travel Country Club Road. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan, File #29-00. Member Bernth seconded the motion. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 8 Member Craig stated that she would not be voting for the ODP because of the infrastructure and adequate public facilities issues. Chairman Gavaldon stated that we need to be conscious of how the road system will work with the historic preservation issues. He added that he would support the project but wanted to make sure that the street and transportation issues would be taken care of at the PDP level. The motion was approved 4-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative. Other Business Planning Director Gloss announced that the March 1$` Planning and Zoning Board meeting has been cancelled but the February 23rd worksession would still take place. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.