Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/20/2008Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover & Wetzler Excused absence: Lingle Staff Present: Atteberry, Roy, Dush, Eckman, Olt, Waido, Frank, Vincent, Aspen, Langenberger, Richter, Weston, and Sanchez -Sprague Announcements: Introduction of the new Current Planning Director Steven Dush Agenda Review. Interim Director Olt reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Citizen participation: None Move to Executive Session As authorized by City Code Section 2-31 (a) (2), Member Stockover moved to go into executive session for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney to receive legal advice regarding potential litigation and the manner in which the Board's actions may be affected by existing law. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Return to regular Hearing at approximately 6:47 p.m. Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. Audience member William Welch asked that Gateway Vt, 2"d, and 3rd Annexations be pulled from consent. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the October 16, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2 Camellia's Project Development Plan, # 27-08 Discussion Items: 3, Gateway First, Second & Third Annexations, # 35-08, 35-0BA & 35-OBB 4. Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey Results & Urban Renewal Plan 5. Fort Collins Brewery Project Development Plan, # 32-08 6. 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Project, 1061 Process for CDOT & FHWA Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 2 Consent Agenda Member Stockover moved for the approval of the consent agenda that includes item # 1, October 16, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes and item # 2 Camellia's Project Development Plan, # 27-08. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Project: Gateway First, Second and Third Annexations, # 35-08, 35-08A and 35-086 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone approximately 256.3 acres known as the Gateway Annexation. The proposed zoning for the annexation is the POL — Public Open Lands, District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: Senior Planner Ken Waldo reported this is a 100% voluntary request to annex approximately 256.3 acres in an area predominately in the northwest corner of Harmony & 1-25. Most of the area is in the Arapahoe Bend Natural Area. Portions of 1-25 are contained in the area to be annexed, including the highway right -of way from about three-quarters (314) of a mile north of Harmony Road to about one (1) mile south of Harmony Road. The property will be annexed via three annexations, the Gateway First Annexation, the Gateway Second Annexation, and the Gateway Third Annexation. The Gateway Second and Third Annexations will be considered concurrently which is permitted by the State of Colorado Revised Statutes, which requires that 1/6 of the boundary of each annexation be contiguous to existing city limits. Public Input: William Welch,1224 Twin Oak Court, Fort Collins, represents CWH Properties and Connell Resources which owns the east side of most of the proposed annexations from County Road 36 going north about 2/3 of the way to Harmony Road. He wanted to ask why this is being done and what are the impacts of having a piece of property annexed as public open lands adjacent to an industrial area that's going to be there for quite some time. Waldo said they are not annexing any of the property just the 1-25 right-of-way. All the property being annexed is in the City's Growth Management Area boundary and according to the City's agreement with Larimer County will be annexed once a petition is received. The basis for zoning of Public Open Lands (POL) is the City's Comprehensive Plan (aka City Plan). The Structure Plan Map (adopted by City Council) shows the area to be natural areas in part of the Timnath/Windsor/Fort Collins separator. It is true that Timnath has their own plan and they have designated the areas east of 1-25 differently than what the City Structure Plan shows but the basis for the City of Fort Collins's zoning is the Structure Plan. Chair Schmidt commented that last month the Board recommended the annexation of another public open land. At that time the Board was informed the City is going through a series of annexations as a "clean-up" measure so that City public open lands located in the County and become available ((contiguous to city limits) will be annexed per the Larimer County/City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 3 Welch said with an operating gravel pit and an asphalt plant that will be on adjacent property for ten to fifteen years; what does this do that the owner needs to be concerned about? Also whenever he's viewed the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) Welch said, it all seemed to stop west of 1-25 not the east right-of-way. Waido said that is not true, the City's GMA boundary is the dark area on the map displayed on the overhead projection screen and it shows inclusion of the 1-25 east right-of-way. Chair Schmidt said she's presuming the properties that Mr. Welch is concerned about are not in the City's GMA. At this present time, this annexation would not really impact their properties. Welch asked what about access control issues into that area —historic use, use by rights, etc. on the interstate system. Welch asked if we were telling him that Fort Collins does not have the ability to control, manage or change any of the existing agreements. Waido said correct; access is a function of what the State Highway Department would permit off of their frontage roads. Welch asked if there were changes to the use on that property, would there be a need to go to the City of Fort Collins and would impact fees be applied. Waido said there are state laws that require the County to refer any development proposal within two miles of the City limits for review and comment so the City would have the opportunity to comment if there would be any development plans for this property. Welch asked if they operate in unincorporated Larimer County and now have their access points into annexed land in Fort Collins, will they have fees or tariffs applied. Waido said the City collects fees at the time a building permit is issued. Since the property would not be obtaining a building permit for a development outside the city limits, there would be no mechanism to collect impact fees. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said with regard to access control plans, he didn't know if there is an access control plan for that frontage road between CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) and Larimer County. Welch said no —they basically have historic access because of its prior use as a farm field. Eckman said if there is no existing access plan, should it come into the city than it would continue the same unless CDOT said there needs to be an access control plan. Then it would be between CDOT and the City. He would think there would be a chance for input by affected parties. Welch asked if the City decided it wanted their property in the GMA what would that process be. Waido said the IGA between the City and Larimer County requires a joint action by both bodies to make any amendments to a GMA boundary. Welch asked how the landowner participates in that process. Waido said it's a public review process --the Planning & Zoning Board conducts a public hearing; the Larimer County Planning Commission conducts public hearings and elected officials (Larimer County Commissions and City Council) would conduct public hearings. Welch asked if Waido would speculate if that would happen. Waido said no, he is not willing to speculate. Eckman added that if a property owner wanted to be in the Fort Collins GMA, they could make that suggestion for consideration. Waido said yes, they could make that request and the process to amend the GMA would be as he just described. Welch said that knowing that their property is in an industrial zone nags on his mind about the adjacent property being open space. He didn't quite understand if there is an alternative zoning designation that is more appropriate to that area. Highway right-of-way does not seem like open space to him. Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 4 Chair Schmidt said that once a property is annexed they could still apply for a change in zoning at a future point in time. Welch asked if it's a city owned property, then it's the city that would need to make that request. Waido said that's correct. Eckman added the LUC (Land Use Code) does say that zone district lines, unless they are clearly shown as a property line, would be down the middle of a street (that's not to say that an interstate highway is like a street.) Eckman said he would think that when that land is annexed, it would be a good idea for the City to coordinate the zoning of the street out in front of it with the zoning of the land. If somehow the GMA should change, they sought to be annexed (were annexed and zoned industrial), it would seem silly then to have the street on the zoning map showing a different zone than the adjacent property. Waido provided an example of another option. He said when the City changed the zoning of what was the former Resource Recovery Farm (at Prospect & 1-25); it was put into the Public Open Lands (POL) zone. However, when the property exchange with CSURF (Colorado State University Research Foundation) came about, it was rezoned to E (Employment.) Because the initial POL zone district included the right of way of 1-25'to the east side, when the E rezoning took place it was primarily for the CSURF property and there was a green strip of POL zone along the interstate highway. He said it could work both ways. Welch said that in the notice to adjacent property owners, it said it was a 100% voluntary request to annex. Since it is unincorporated Larimer County and CDOT, he did not understand the statement "voluntary request". Waido said the property owner is actually the Fort Collins Capital Leasing Corporation (FCCLC). Eckman said FCCLC is the applicant whose land is included in the annexation application. That application is for land only —no streets, highways, or roads. Jay Stoner, 1200 Wooded Creek Court, Fort Collins. He has several questions relating to how the Arapahoe Bends Natural Area —a publicly owned open space was transferred to a private corporation. He said the process in how that happened is interesting and expeditious. Same piece of property: take it out, change ownership, than put it back in again. The question with all that background information is what is the value or benefit to the citizens of Fort Collins that you're annexing 1-25 and zoning it as open space? Waido said we're annexing it because it's in our GMA boundary and it's our agreement with Larimer County to annex parts of the GMA when there is a petition for annexation. The petition recently received from the Fort Collins Capital Leasing Corporation is what is under review tonight. Staff is recommending it be zoned POL based on the City's Structure Plan. The Structure Plan Map shows the Arapahoe Bend area is designated as a natural area; the rest of the "green" area is part of the Fort Collins/Timnath/Windsor separator. A part of the interstate is also colored "green" and is part of that separator so that is why we are recommending that it be zoned POL as well. Stoner asked why it is important to annex 1-25 along that stretch. Waido said because it was included in the petition and it's our agreement to annex property that's petitioned within our GMA boundary into the city limits. City Attorney Steve Roy said what Mr. Stoner is probably getting at is the question of why was it disconnected to begin with and why now it is being re -annexed. Stoner said yes, that is a question he has. Roy said the City has been pretty open about the fact that this property was disconnected and is being re -annexed to set up a conflicting annexation with the Timnath Riverwalk annexation. The parts of Harmony Road that are overlapped by this annexation will be the subject of an election under the annexation laws as to whether that part of Harmony Road will be annexed ultimately into the City of Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 5 Fort Collins or the Town of Timnath. So the annexation of all of this property has a dual purpose. Obviously the natural area, being within the GMA, should be in the city limits and it's being re - annexed in order to accomplish that. It's being accompanied by rights -of -way. Roy said the bigger picture here is the competing annexations of portions of this annexation between the Town of Timnath and the City of Fort Collins. As he said, part of that will be determined by an election. It's also all going to be the subject of mediation that Timnath has agreed to and which Fort Collins has requested. This response by Fort Collins to the Timnath annexation was prompted by Fort Collins concern that the Riverwalk annexation is within the Fort Collins GMA. All of the issues underlying these competing annexations will be addressed and resolved through the mediation that would be undertaken by the two communities. Stoner asked about the conflicting annexations being resolved by election. Who votes in the election? Roy said he'd first like to say that the Town of Timnath is represented by counsel, so as the City Attorney for Fort Collins, he's giving his opinion on all of these issues with the understanding that Timnath and its town counsel may or may not agree with them. In response to Stoner's question, he then stated that the State annexation laws provide that the owners of the property that is claimed by both municipalities vote in the election. End of Public Input Board Questions: None. Chair Schmidt noted the Board's questions had been addressed in their work session last Friday. Motion: Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council the approval of Gateway First, Second and Third Annexations, # 35-08, 35-08A and 35-08B and that the requested zoning is POL (Public Open Lands) district. In support of his motion he adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained on page 3 of the staff report. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Project: Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey Results & Urban Renewal Plan Project Description: Colorado Revised Statutes 31-25-107(2) requires the City Council to formally submit the Prospect South Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation as to the Urban Renewal Plan's conformity with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board needs to submit a written recommendation to the City Council. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony. Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: City Planner Christina Vincent reported the study area is approximately 69 acres with 93 parcels of private property, including the public right-of-way and railroad ROW (right-of-way) parcels. The City of Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 6 Fort Collins Structure plan identifies this area as a commercial corridor and currently zoned commercial. The boundary of the area to which this Plan applies generally includes those properties located within the area bounded by: North: Prospect Road, beginning one-half block east of College Avenue and extending to the BNSF railroad tracks one block west of College Avenue; East: The north -south alley that runs between South College Avenue and Remington Street to Parker Street and follows the single ownership parcel lines that face College Ave.; South: Immediately north of Rutgers Avenue; and West: The BNSF railroad tracks; including one small parcel west of the railroad and south of Prospect Road. The boundary may change but the map presented tonight represents the changes made to date. There are several policies in City Plan which directly relate to this area; the one she'd like to highlight is the Targeted Redevelopment area within City Plan. The need for redevelopment in that area (as determined by the City's consultants) is fairly high and staff would encourage the urban renewal plan area. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council that the Prospect South Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with City Plan. Board Questions: Chair Schmidt said she looked up that section of City Plan (Policy GM-8.1) and actually the targeted area is the Mason Street Corridor and it stops at College. It doesn't go to the east side of College Avenue. Vincent said yes, the western boundary is Mason Street. Schmidt said it appeared the area targeted redevelopment and infill in City Plan is not the same as the one presented in the proposal --the boundary appears to be College Avenue and it almost doubles the URA (Urban Renewal Area). Vincent said Schmidt is correct in saying that —the targeted area noted in City Plan is mainly to the west of College Avenue. However, because staff received requests for participation from CSURF in the northwest and four separate property owners on the eastern boundary it was revised. Advance Planning Director Joe Frank added comments related to the map. He said the map is important. The intent is not to identify all of the areas that should be targeted for compatible infill and redevelopment. Principle GM-8 in City Plan says the City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in areas within the Growth Management Area boundary. It goes on to talk about policies for instance, land already undergoing positive change which is expected to continue, areas where infrastructure capacity exists, areas where public investment is warranted from a policy perspective, areas with special opportunities such as where major public and private investment is already planned, and transportation opportunities along travel corridors and along enhanced travel corridors. Those are some of the criteria used to define the area. The map defined in 2004 is not meant to be all-inclusive. Frank said having the west side is a good indication of how dynamic the Plan can be and what the Planning & Zoning Board is being asked tonight is to look at this criterion and consider that the areas east of College Avenue also meet that definition of an area that we should target for redevelopment. Staff's recommendation is yes, it does. The blight study shows from an urban renewal standpoint there were multiple factors of blight existing in that area. Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 7 Chair Schmidt asked staff to speak to economic benefit (ECQN 1.5.) Within an URA (Urban Renewal Area), do we receive the benefit on particular properties as they redevelop? Frank asked if Schmidt was talking about the tax increment component. Schmidt said yes. Schmidt asked if it would be wiser to limit the URA to a specific area where immediate projects are planned? Schmidt's concern is you start the clock ticking so a redevelopment that's planned later in the URA's life cycle (maybe years 10- 15) does not get the benefit of much time on the clock. Frank said when the URA was established they looked at that question —whether it should be created on a project -by -project basis or created as an area and wait for development to happen. A survey they conducted in Colorado showed it's done 50/50-50% of the time by project. He did not think they would be bringing this project forward at this time unless they had a major development proposal —which is the CSURF student housing project which needs the assistance of TIF (tax increment financing) and will have beneficial impacts on the entire area. The URA for the Foothills Mall could be considered a project -by -project method as an incentive for leading redevelopment. In the North College area, staff felt it was better to establish a URA and lead redevelopment more incrementally than just one project at a time. Frank said they've had discussions with property owners and the boundary might change a little. Frank said we've had a lot of interest on the east side to bring them in. They do have some redevelopment plans and this could help them bring them to fruition. Chair Schmidt asked if you can "un-do" the URA similar to what happened with the Foothills Mall URA. Schmidt asked if you could do that for just a portion of the area. Vincent said yes. You can stop the clock and amend the boundary —it would take an amendment of the Plan. Frank said they hope to get it right to start. Part of that effort are the discussions they're having now with CSURF They are also making decisions on the boundary of the plan —you might see something just a "little" different. There could be more discussion before staff makes a presentation to City Council on January 20'h. Member Smith noted there were provisions for a Minor and Major Modification in a URA by the Statute. Is there a distinction between a Minor and Major or all they all treated as one? Frank said it's all one amendment. Member Rollins asked if the Board were to recommend this is in compliance with City Plan, as projects come forward would they have to stay consistent with City Plan versus going outside that -- say a zoning that's not consistent. Frank said that City Plan will guide the appropriate land uses and the URP (Urban Renewal Plan) is based upon City Plan being the land use plan. Whatever development goes in, it will have to be in conformance with City Plan. Frank said City Council, acting as the Commission of the URA, always has the discretion of deciding. It's their decision on whether to fund a project or not; whether it fits into their vision of redevelopment or not. It doesn't mean that every project will automatically get the benefits of the URA. It's a case -by -case situation. Eckman said from the planning perspective, the Board's job tonight is whether this URA plan area conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Later as projects come for development, they will still have to comply with the LUC (Land Use Code), the underpinnings of which is the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 8 Member Rollins was wondering if we see variances from that, is the Board expected to hold those projects to a higher standard? Frank said you hold those projects to the same standards that are in the Land Use Code and City Plan. Frank said the Authority might require higher standards for the use of TIF—projects looking better, better quality even beyond what would be in the Code. Eckman said that's not to say a URA project coming before the Board could not request a Modification of the Standard just like any other project. Chair Schmidt noted just like in the North College URA, people can redevelop without requesting funding. They can put anything they want on their property so long as it meets current LUC requirements. Public Input None Board Questions/Comments: Chair Schmidt said her only comment is since it seems to be "bail out" season (national economic bailouts), she worries that it'll give the citizens the impression taxpayers' money is being used and that causes concern where the URA boundaries are being forged. Vincent said for the benefit of the public, to be qualified to be an urban renewal project there are heavy stipulations for the improvements that have to be done. In addition, general taxpayer funds are not used —the revenue generated and used comes from tax incremental funds generated by property owners who are participating in the URA. There is a criterion that needs to be met over and above City Plan requirements. Frank said this area has significant economic barriers —it has storm drainage issues, it has missing roads, it has curb and gutters missing, it has sidewalks missing —there are significant public improvement that staff believe without the assistance of the URA that we may not see redevelopment occur and it could just continue to deteriorate. That's based upon City Plan saying it's a targeted redevelopment area and it's based upon the blight study that shows the problems and it could create barriers to redevelopment. Frank said this is not a "bail out of General Motors". Motion: Member Stockover recommends the Planning & Zoning Board submit a written recommendation to City Council that the Prospect South Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Chair Schmidt has concern about the boundary areas. She hopes that City Council considers the applications as relates to the boundaries and as they meet the intent of City Plan. Member Stockover said that with that we have to note that all the property on the east side is adjoining College Avenue commercial property. We didn't just keep marching back from that. It was very systematic and that's what made him feel comfortable with the boundaries. Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 9 Project: Fort Collins Brewery Project Development Plan, # 32-08 Project Description: This is a request to develop a 2.6 acre site at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Lemay Avenues which is currently vacant land. Two buildings are proposed: one 30,000 square foot light -industrial brewery building with a restaurant and tasting room and one 31,500 square foot mixed -use building with 15,000 square foot of retail and office uses on the first two levels and 12 dwelling units above. The property is located within City limits and is zoned (- Industrial District. Recommendation: Approval Senior Planner Anne Aspen reported this proposal is for a mixed -use building and a brewery (which is a light industrial building) that contains a restaurant and a tasting room. It's on 2.6-acre site on currently vacant land zoned I (Industrial) at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Lemay. Two buildings are proposed which are close to 30,000 square feet. Staff recommendation is for approval. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Tom Peters said that with his wife Jill he has owned the Fort Collins Brewery for about four years. They are presently located at 1900 E. Lincoln and some may recognize that as the old H.C. Berger Brewery. Over the last few years they've outgrown that facility and have been looking to move the brewery inside the city limits. They've found a great location at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Lemay close to the Poudre Bike Trail, close to the bus stop, and closer to what were calling the "craft brewers triangle" —something that Fort Collins is starting to become famous for. The brewery will be home to a restaurant inside the brewery separated by floor to ceiling glass wall looking out into production. The restaurant will offer local organic produce paired with beer to provide jobs for people in Fort Collins. There will be quite a few jobs created by this new structure. The building will also have several green features —we're looking at metal insulated foam panels, high efficiency insulation, brew house that reclaims the steam (heat energy that normally goes out the roof). They are also looking at a very unique air exchange system —outside air when it's cool at night to reduce or eliminate the need for air conditioning of the brewery. Their team of architects and engineers have worked hard to provide design that meets City requirements and also very aesthetically pleasing and unique. Public Input: None Board Questions: Member Smith referenced page 2 of the staff report where it referred to compliance with the I (Industrial) zone standards. In the purpose statement it talks about a variety of work processes — manufacturing, warehousing, distributing and it also talks about complementary and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, child care centers, and housing. It goes on to say at the very end of that paragraph that industrial and manufacturing processes used in this district may, by necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. How do you reconcile those two conflicting Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 10 sentences? Aspen said the I zone is the only zone district in the City of Fort Collins that allows a number of industrial processes that by their very nature may not be compatible with residential so it's an acknowledgement that's the case in the I zone district. It doesn't mean that, especially in this case, that is the situation. A brewery next to some lofts fits quite well. Smith said that it would be unlikely for someone to propose a "straight residential development." It would have to be a significant mixed -use component on the same campus —is that correct? Is that what happens when residential is allowed in the I Zone? Aspen said that's correct. Residential has to be above a non-residential use and in this case it is and cannot exceed 50% of the buildable floor area of the building. There will be two stories of retail and commercial personal business shops with residential units on the top two floors. Chair Schmidt asked that staff review the road improvements that will be made with this project. Will they be on Lincoln Street only? Engineering staff member Sheri Langenberger said this project, in the interim situation, will just be installing sidewalk on both road frontages. They are designing those frontages and will be escrowing funds (cash in lieu of construction) with the City. Chair Schmidt asked when the road improvements would be made. Langenberger said it really needs to be done as a whole intersection improvement. Langenberger said that eventually Lemay is suppose to curve as it goes further north for an overpass or underpass at the railroad tracts. There will be some grade changes and other design considerations. Just as the bank across the street, whc completed their sidewalks, but will complete curb and gutter later because of grade changes will be occurring later. Member Stockover asked what they envisioned for the convenience shopping center. Aspen said that convenience -shopping center is a defined use that is intended to serve the residential portion of the site or the surrounding area. Aspen said the shopping would be on the two lower levels below the dwelling units. Stockover said he's concerned that should it be a shop like 7-11 or such we would have too much traffic coming in and out. He wants to make sure we're not building something that would cause an impact to traffic flow at that intersection. Aspen said it's called convenience shopping center but it does not mean a 7-11 type store. It's a defined term that is very specific and the owner is contemplating things like a coffee shop, a bagel shop, a dentist office or an insurance office. They've performed a transportation impact study (TIS) as required and the TIS indicates they do not need warrants for any additional improvements to that area --they are not significantly contributing to traffic impact and they are providing adequate parking for all the uses. Member Rollins said when the TIS was done that piece of the study was done under specialty retail which is the lowest retail trip generator. It does not replicate a convenience store by any stretch of the imagination. If a convenience store goes in there, the traffic numbers will be much different than the TIS that was included in the Board's packet. How would we resolve that... is there a condition that needs to be considered? Applicant Peters said it's not their intention to use all the parking spots for a convenience store and take away from the brewery or the restaurant. They're looking for commercial uses that complement like a bagel shop or a coffee shop (low traffic generators.) They're not looking at 7-11 or Subway. Chair Schmidt asked where the coffee shop would be. Is it in the most western portion? Will people be coming in and going out from Lincoln to get there? Aspen said the entrance/exit it would be on the west side of the site. Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 11 Member Smith asked if the left -in off of Lincoln issue had been resolved. Aspen said they have submitted both an interim plan and an alternate plan partly because we don't know what the ultimate solution for Lincoln will be. Langenberger said in the interim they would have a full access point there. Lincoln is a considered a four -lane arterial and typically a four -lane arterial would have a median but in this case staff is considering not having a center median. It will be like Prospect between Shields and Taft Hill where there's a center turn lane to allow a place to pull in and turn. Motion: Member Stockover moved to approve the Fort Collins Brewery Project Development Plan, # 32- 08 and in support of his motion he adopts the Findings of FactlConclusion as contained on page 9 of the staff report. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Project: 1-251SH 392 interchange Project, 1601 Process for CDOT & FHWA Project Description: The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor have decided to proceed with an accelerated environmental clearance process for the SH 39211-25 interchange improvements. The process underway is referred to as the 1601 process including environmental clearance under Categorical Exclusion. In order to accelerate the construction of this much needed interchange, this process utilizes the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) environmental data and "tight -diamond" interchange design. Fort Collins and Windsor staff members are working along with a consultant team to complete the 1601 requirements of the CDOT and FHWA. Completion of these requirements will allow the project to be designed and ready for implementation when construction funding is available. Design funding in the amount of $1.9 million is available from CDOT, subsequent to the CDOT Transportation Commission approval of the 1601 package to be submitted on January 15th 2009. This process has been initiated to allow the much needed safety enhancements and improved traffic flow to be realized as soon as construction funding is available. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: Engineering staff member Rick Richter and Environmental Planner Denise Weston reported that the interchange at 1-25 and State Highway 392 located at exist 262 borders the west edge of the Town of Windsor and the southeastern limits of the City of Fort Collins. In recent years, due to an increasing number of drivers using that interchange; it is unable to handle the current traffic capacity and is operating at failing or near failing levels of services. Structurally the bridge is safe but the alignment of the interchange causes a lot of problems. Richter reported that CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) has been working on 1-25 from Denver north to the Colorado state line including all the interchanges along that area. They've also been conducting an environmental study. They've completed a draft and open houses are currently Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 12 taking place to seek public input. That whole process would take to 2011 or 2012 before this interchange would be cleared for construction. In discussions, Fort Collins City Council and the Windsor Town Board decided they should pursue opportunities to move that interchange up in the process. That required them to ask CDOT to pull that interchange out of the North 1-25 Environmental Assessment Study and to focus on that interchange itself to get clearance to move forward with design and potential construction. That request to CDOT was approved in March 2008—it removed that interchange from the study and allowed them to begin their own study to clear the interchange for construction. That process is called a 1601 process. The 1601 process is reviewed and if approved by both Fort Collins City Council and the Windsor Town Board will go to the Transportation Commission for final approval. If approved by the Commission, an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) would be developed between Windsor, Fort Collins, and CDOT. The clearance is expected early 2009 and the design process would be completed about 18 months beyond that. The earliest construction, if funding is available would be late 2011. Board Questions: Chair Schmidt asked exactly what the 1601 process entailed. Richter said there are three parts: design, environmental, and funding. The preliminary design of the interchange would have more detail than the EIS (which has a conceptual design). It defines the footprint of the interchange, where the frontage roads would be, where the on -ramps would be, the length of the bridge, the type of bridge, and the retaining walls. Once the preliminary design is complete, they would establish a detailed cost estimate. The second part is the environmental clearance process --staff is in the latter stages of that. The final part would be a funding plan. When presenting to the Transportation Commission, they are not looking for solid dollars to build the interchange. The Commission is looking for viable plans that fund the interchange. Staff has come up with three options for funding plans all of which include $1.9 million dollars from CDOT, then considers some mix of funds from Windsor, Fort Collins, the metro district, and maybe some development (PIF (Plant Investment Fee) or TIF (tax increment financing)) fees. That information goes to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Windsor Town Board the third week of December. They will review it formally at an early January meetings then the final package will go to CDOT. CDOT acts on that package on January 15"'. Chair Schmidt asked how much of the information provided in the Board packet information would change. Richter said the only thing that might change is the cost estimate. The cost was $22.7 million. That's a cost estimate that CDOT did a couple of years so he thinks it's going to increase because of construction costs. As they get a detailed design they will be able to "nail that down." They expect to have a revised cost by the third week of December. Chair Schmidt asked if they were still considering a change to the road alignment. Richter said the northwest corner of the interchange might change. That alignment was part of the North 1-25 EIS. Through the design phase, staff will be looking at optional alignments. In discussions with CDOT, they felt that at least through the 1601 process that we would leave the alignment as it's shown on the drawing but they have no problem with bringing that closer to I-25. That frontage road is on the City's Master Street Plan as a collector street. Right now CDOT has responsibility for the frontage roads. They would prefer to transfer that to the City of Fort Collins at some point when this property becomes annexed. If that happens, that frontage road final alignment would probably happen during a development process of that property. Richter said there are some limits to how much that alignment Planning & Zoning Board November 20, 2008 Page 13 changes. For the 1601 process, the western footprint would be the outside footprint of the project. The frontage road itself could come closer to 1-25 after it leaves the intersection and heads north. Member Wetzler asked if the frontage road between the road and 1-25 not opportune commercial development and create another stakeholder who could contribute to interchange construction costs. Richter said in the Structure Plan that is identified as office and light retail. There's about a 5 acre parcel that is privately owned and this particular frontage road could go through the middle or go along the east side of their property if it's brought closer to 1-25. This alignment would allow two frontages to that road. Chair Schmidt asked who maintains the carpool lots. Richter said CDOT. That could be transferred if the roads are transferred to the City. Chair Schmidt asked if there is anything additional to be done on the environmental impacts or is what in their packet complete. Weston said it's complete —the information was taken directly out of the North I-25 EIS. Public Input: None Motion: Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council the approval of 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Project and 1601 Process. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. L:4� 4a/1--z', Current Planning Director Brigitte idt, Chair