Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/05/2007Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Sommers, Lagenberger, Stanford, and Sanchez - Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Of special note— • Consent Item 2, East Ridge C-Store PDP staff asks that conditions of approval be a redesign of Skyes Drive to accommodate the design and construction of the proposed median at the intersection of Skyes Drive and North Timberline Road and for obtaining the additional street right-of-way necessary to construct the new Sykes Drive road alignment and width. Staff recommends it remain on the consent agenda • Discussion Item 4, CSURF Research Campus ODP, the addition of a CSURF/AVA Solar Delich Associates Transportation Impact Study addendum to the file —the result of a question raised at the work session and a revised Staff Report Findings and Facts. Citizen participation: None Chair Lingle ask members of the audience and or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. No additional items were moved from the Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. East Ridge C-Store Project Development Plan, # 33-98G 3. Liberty Farms Project Development Plan, # 31-06A Discussion Items: 4. CSURF Research Campus Overall Development Plan, # 4-04B Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from the October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the East Ridge C-Store Project Development Plan, # 33-98G including the conditions in the memorandum dated December 6, 2007, and Liberty Farms Project Development Plan, # 31-06A which includes the approval of the modifications made in that plan. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board December 6, 2007 Page 2 Project: CSURF Research Campus Overall Development Plan - # 4-04B Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) on 142 acres located at the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. The site is the former City of Fort Collins Resource Recovery Farm. It is located between the Colorado Welcome Center and 1-25. The ODP includes a future development phase for AVA Solar on approximately 25 acres. This is a light industrial use that will manufacture solar photovoltaic panels and include offices for support functions. An estimated 600 to 700 employees will be needed for this first phase. Future phases are expected to be a mix of offices and light industrial. The site was recently rezoned by City Council from C, Commercial and P-O-L, Public Open Land to E, Employment. In addition, the site was traded by the City of Fort Collins to Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) in exchange for 267 acres of land in the northwest area of the Growth Management Area near the foothills next to the Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported the amended O.D.P. has been evaluated by the standards of Section 2.3.2 (H) (1-7) of the Land Use Code and complies with these standards. This O.D.P. is being offered in anticipation of a Project Development Plan (PDP) for AVA Solar, a light industrial use. The file includes an memorandum from Delich Associates, a addendum to the transportation impact study —the result of a question raised at the work session on November 30'". Armand Trimm of the Neenan Company, representing AVA Solar, asked consultant Matt Delich, traffic and transportation engineer, to address any questions the Board may have with regard to transportation issues. Delich said he was available for any questions the Board may have. Member Schmidt asked how phasing would take place, especially as it relates to employees. Trimm responded that the first phase includes a 150,000 square foot structure. In the future, they would be considering an option for more land but at this point their focus is phase one. Schmidt asked if there were plans for a staff cafeteria. Trimm replied that the facility would have all necessary staff amenities, including a cafeteria. Public Input Rick White, 7200 S. Alton Way, B150, Centennial Colorado, said he represented an 18 member group —owners of a 129 acre parcel on the northeast comer of Prospect and 1-25. They enthusiastically endorse the CSURF/AVA ODP and welcome AVA as a neighbor. They have a couple of concerns and want to offer some conditions of approval for consideration by the Board. The areas of concerns are in the area of funding the improvements for the Prospect/1-25 interchange and the Boxelder flood plain. Because of limited Federal and State funds, it's assumed funding for the interchange is going to come from local sources. No comprehensive study has been completed and there is no plan for how costs will be allocated among the affected interests. He would like to see some collaborative effort of affected interests similar to the Boxelder Alliance. The alliance, formed Planning & Zoning Board December 6, 2007 Page 3 three years ago, resulted in an actual plan using "good solid engineering" and was approved by affected municipalities. White requested approval of the ODP with the following conditions: 1. The entire CSURF development participate in a self administered collaborative effort on the part of the affected parties to plan, design and fund improvements to the interchange and Prospect Road. 2. The project is required to participate in the Boxelder Creek Floodplain Mitigation Plan, which may also have some impact fees. Chair Lingle asked if it is the intent of the 18 property owners to participate in the above recommended agreements. White responded yes. They have already spent money and would continue to put "their money where their mouth is" with regard to the improvements needed at that interchange. Closed Public Input Chair Lingle asked Staff member Shepard or the applicant to address the issue of infrastructure improvement funding. Shepard acknowledged the City was being challenged to coordinate public improvements on the fringe of a growing city. Further, the interchange is somewhat complicated by the fact that it's not under our jurisdiction. CDOT's (Colorado Department of Transportation) North 1-25 EIS has identified the improvements. We don't, however, have jurisdiction over an improvement that's needed on the edge of our City. Obviously a lot of effort needs to be made in that area. The stormwater issue, however, was more evolved. The Boxelder Alliance, working with both the City of Wellington and Larimer County (the Town of Timnath is not participating) has been operating for the past three years. Per Bob Smith, Stormwater Utilities Engineer, what's required is the need to move about 4,000 cfs underneath Prospect Road at two crossings. Each crossing will have two to three culverts with an estimated project cost of $400,000. The idea is to form a basin improvement district similar to the West Vine project in which the City partnered with Larimer County. Dedicated basin improvement funds in that case are generated both at building permit time and with monthly utility bills. The Overall Development Plan is placing a spotlight on the issues. The good news is we've got a good working relationship with both Region 4 CDOT and Larimer County. The systems that are in place are that it's likely that AVA Solar Phase could probably develop without all the interchange improvements. There is one turn movement that fails —it fails now and is not the fault of AVA Solar. At the issuance of Building Permit there will be a street over sizing fee and capital expansion fees. Those systems will capture some value in the development of phase one. Engineering staff member Sheri Langenberger said the City is very aware of the needs of the interchange and understands it's going to have to be an area wide project. How that project gets put together is not yet known. The ODP does not yet push any improvements. When AVA comes in with their PDP, there will be more discussion (and further work internally) as to what interchange improvements may be necessary. Chair Lingle asked (setting aside the jurisdictional question) how does the City deal with a situation within city limits when a system is failing and a development is proposed. Langenberger said that situation did happen with a couple of development proposals along Timberline Road. When the Sidehill project (NE corner of Drake & Timberline) and the Timberline Center (across the street) were held up because of inadequate public facilities (ProspecttTimberline intersection was failing), they Planning & Zoning Board December 6, 2007 Page 4 worked with the City and others to develop a Special Improvement District (SID.) That district funded improvements to both Timberline Road and the Prospect intersection to move their proposals forward. They would not have otherwise been able to pull building permits. Lingle asked if the background system was already failing or was the strain the result of the proposed project. Langenberger responded the system was already failing. Member Schmidt wondered about timing in participating in SIDS. For example, what if AVA Solar is not ready when all the other affected interests get together to develop an SID? Can they participate even though they've already been approved? Langenberger believes all affected parties vote on the SID question whether they're built out or not. Deputy City Attorney Eckman noted there are both voluntary and involuntary SIDS. The SID improving Timberline Road and the intersection at Prospect was promoted largely by the developments which could not proceed without those improvements. The Prospect and 1-25 interchange is a little different, however, because the City cannot improve an interchange when they think they need one. It involves CDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, environmental impact statements and all kinds of studies that will make sure the interchange won't interfere with the flow of traffic on 1-25. It's very much a multi -jurisdictional effort. The Code (at this point) does not give us the authority to deny a project based on the need on an interstate highway. It does, however, allow for the creation of an SID. Member Rollins asked if the west frontage road at Prospect was under City or State jurisdiction. Langenberger replied all frontage road around that interchange have State jurisdiction. Ward Stanford, City Traffic Operations, reported none of the 1-25 interchanges are a part of the City Master Plan Structure. If it's not on a CDOT approved list, APF (Adequate Public Facilities) criteria does not apply to it. Member Rollins said when we're looking at the total build out of this ODP and the west frontage road at Prospect is already failing with the current level of traffic, how does that square with traffic demands when fully built out? Staff member Langenberger noted CDOT would willingly dedicate any of the frontage roads to the City because of the maintenance issues. She's raised the question of whether the City should take over the frontage road section near the Prospect interchange but currently does not have an answer to that question. She's still looking at impacts and there needs to be further internal discussions as to what makes sense. However it turns out with the proposed development —whether it'll remain CDOT or become City right-of-way; they'll continue to work with CDOT on any design changes. Chair Lingle asked how the interchanges were different from how the City and CDOT handle Highway 287. Langenberger replied they're different (from an APF perspective) because College is a part of the capital improvement plan where items are listed and improvement costs identified and prioritized. 1-25 interchanges are not a part of the plan. Previously the belief had been any improvements would be state and federally funded. That is no longer the reality of the situation. The City will continue to work with CDOT, however, on interchange questions with regard to plans, improvements, access points, and required permits. Member Schmidt asked how financing would work with regard to Boxelder Creek improvements. Staff member Shepard said per Bob Smith it is estimated in a mid-2008 timeframe the three jurisdictions would put in place a legal mechanism to provide stormwater improvement funding. The stormwater improvements would be a subcomponent of a Prospect Street Widening Engineering Capital Project Planning & Zoning Board December 6, 2007 Page 5 estimated to be $3 million total (including the $400,000 stormwater basin improvements on that project.) Planning Director Gloss noted that Bob Smith, in a presentation at a P&Z work session, outlined the public improvements necessary within the whole Boxelder Basin. The City is aware of the issues and what the basin design needs to be. The City will be collecting fees from any development in the area (including AVA) so the funds are available when improvements take place. Additionally, AVA or any tenant on site will need to address local drainage issues so as not to make the Boxelder basin condition worse. Member Schmidt asked about timing with regard to AVA participating in the mid-2008 legal mechanism to provide stormwater improvement funding. Director Gloss said the building permit related fees collected are not basin specific and the applicant could better answer any questions with regard to timing. Applicant Trimm of Neenan & Company responded they hope to have the PDP ready in a 151 quarter, 2008 timeframe. Member Schmidt noted before making the motion that she believed the issues raised by Mr. White would be addressed at the PDP level. It was good, however, to raise the questions at the ODP level because it alerts the applicant to the issues that will be scrutinized at the next level. Member Schmidt made a motion to approve CSURF Research Campus Overall Development Plan #4-04B per the facts and findings on page 7 of the staff report. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Member Rollins said she would be voting against the ODP. She is extremely concerned about the significant transportation issues right next to the project. It seems so muddled —so difficult for her to approve the land use proposed as it will generate even more traffic. She's very uncomfortable with the significant issues and the City's lack of jurisdiction. Chair Lingle said he would concur with her discomfort. He believes there needs to be a mechanism for the City to revisit policy regarding the interstate and the inability to evaluate adjacent development based on jurisdiction. It'll create horrible problems at all of our interchanges if we do not. As a community we need to discuss how to alleviate the problem. Because the Board will have a chance at the PDP to more closely scrutinize the issues, he is not willing to vote against the ODP even though he shares Member Rollins concerns. Not having any control options other than involuntary SIDs is not very palatable to him. Motion was approved 6:1 with Member Rollins voting against the motion. Other Business: Director Gloss thanked P&Z members who participated in the PDT Director interviews. They were quite pleased with the second round pool of 5 candidates and a decision is expected soon. Look for a formal announcement in a January timeframe. Meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. David .:" k