Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/15/2004Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Carpenter, Meyer, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Barkeen, Jones, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer, Schlueter, Williams. Election of Officers: Member Gavaldon moved to elect Member Torgerson as Chairperson. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Gavaldon moved to elect Member Meyer as Vice-Chairperson. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 4, 2002, April 10, May 15, September 4, July 17, August 7, and December 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-01 – Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-02 – Easement Dedication. 4. Resolution PZ04-03 – Easement Dedication. 5. #32-03 Homestead – Annexation and Zoning. 6. #29-01A Paradigm Properties – Overall Development Plan. (PULLED TO DISCUSSION – GAVALDON) 7. #36-96H Mulberry & Lemay Crossings, 1st Filing, Lot 3, Beantrees – Project Development Plan. 8. #45-02 Canyon Howes – Project Development Plan & Major Amendment. No record of approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 9. #49-02A Interstate Lands – Overall Development Plan. Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 10. #43-02 Trailhead – Annexation and Zoning. (CONTINUED PER STAFF TO 2/19/04) 11. Fall 2003 Land Use Code – Remanded Item from City Council. (CONTINUED PER STAFF TO 2/19/04) Director Gloss introduced and welcomed new Board member David Lingle. Member Gavaldon pulled Item #6, Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan, to the discussion agenda. Member Schmidt pulled the November 4, 2002 minutes from the consent agenda. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (with one condition added as written in staff report) and 8 (with the updated staff report). Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7- 0. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the November 4, 2002 minutes. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with Member Schmidt abstaining from the vote. Project: Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan, #29-01A Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for permitted land uses. The proposed uses are lodging establishments, standard and fast food (with drive-ins) restaurants, office, retail, and convenience retail store with fuel sales. The area for the ODP is comprised of existing (Fort Collins Motor Sports) and proposed commercial development on 24 acres located at the southeast corner of the Interstate 25 and Prospect Road interchange. The property is zoned C – Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 3 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner, Steve Olt, gave a brief staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the ODP is consistent with the I-25 Sub-Area Plan as well as the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. He added that there is one current retail use on the property – a motor sport retail facility. The remaining property would be developed as per the ODP. There is significant open space shown along the east side of the property on the ODP which is allowed for storm drainage improvements. Ric Hattman, Hattman Associates representing Jeff Hill, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that the property is within the UGA, is zoned C – Commercial and is owned by a single owner. The project meets the minimum setback requirements as set forth in the I-25 Sub-Area Plan. The site features a public plaza and mixed land uses. Mr. Hattman stated that though the level of service standards are not yet met in the area, that is how most ODPs come into the system. The level of service standards are met at the PDP level. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked for information regarding the traffic study Matt Delich, 2272 Glen Haven Drive, Loveland, came to speak as the author of the traffic study. Member Gavaldon asked why the project should be allowed to come in with the current failing levels of service at the Prospect/I-25 intersection. Mr. Delich replied that all of the intersections have stop sign control and do not operate successfully during the peak hours. He added that improvements of various intersections would occur at the PDP level of development with this project or any other project in the area. Member Gavaldon asked about the pedestrian/bicycle level of service and if it too would be addressed at PDP level. Mr. Delich replied that pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service would also be evaluated at the PDP level; it is not appropriate that they be handled at the ODP level. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 4 Member Gavaldon asked about the levels of service being “D” in the future condition in 2025. Mr. Delich replied that at full development of this ODP, there would be various improvements at those intersections which would make them operate acceptably. The improvements would come in when needed based upon a PDP submittal. “D” is an acceptable level, according to the City of Fort Collins standards. Member Schmidt asked if CDOT had to approve signalization on the on- and off- ramps to and from I-25. Mr. Delich replied that CDOT and the City will work together for signalization or any improvement at this interchange. Member Craig asked Planner Olt to review staff’s position on the traffic concerns in that area. Planner Olt replied that staff recognizes the fact that there are some inadequate facilities and insufficient street network at the Prospect/I-25 interchange. The City’s Land Use Code does say that no final plan, site-specific development plan, can be approved with those inadequate facilities. The ODP for Paradigm Properties does recognize the fact that there are inadequate facilities in those locations and they have to work with both the City and CDOT through their PDP and Final Compliance Plan phases to implement the necessary improvements to allow any or all of their development to be approved. Member Craig asked if staff would be able to be more specific about what improvements need to be made when the PDP is submitted. Planner Olt replied that was correct as the PDP is when the land uses and specific traffic studies that are associated with those land uses are provided. The funding mechanisms and actual improvements will have to be done at the time of final plan. Member Craig asked if there would be a chance, with the current deficiencies, that a PDP could come in and still fit under “D” so it doesn’t have to address the adequate public facilities or is the situation out there so deficient that any PDP will cause adequate public facilities to have to be addressed. Planner Olt replied that that would have to be determined as the PDPs come in. Member Craig asked if, for example, a convenience store with fuel sales (7-11) coming in, would precipitate enough traffic to require APF improvements. Director Gloss replied that retail uses generate a substantial amount of traffic; in fact, convenience stores generate some of the highest number of trips of any Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 5 use, based on square footage. Therefore, it is unlikely that that kind of use could come in, as a stand alone project, and meet the APF standards. There may be some other types of uses that are so small that they generate a nominal amount of trips that could slide in under the wire. Given the plans however, staff would not anticipate such a use on this site given the size and proposed uses. Member Schmidt asked about smaller office uses, perhaps those with off-peak hours. Director Gloss replied that some small office uses may be able to slide in under the threshold of trips. Member Schmidt asked if there could be PDPs for separate sections or if it would be one for the whole parcel. Planner Olt replied that it could be broken down into as small of pieces as they want. Member Gavaldon asked about improvements of the Prospect/I-25 interchange to a 4-lane and who would fund those improvements. Planner Olt replied that it could be a shared cost between the developer, the City, and CDOT. He added that the funding discussions will not begin until the PDP level. Member Gavaldon stated concern about not addressing APF at the ODP level. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan, File #29-01A, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would support the motion because staff had addressed her concerns about the fact that the project will not happen until improvements have been made. She stated that she would like to see the transportation level of service standards (Section 3.6.4) addressed thoroughly at the PDP stage. Member Meyer stated that she shared Member Craig’s concern but added that there would be very little development that would trigger the need for improvements. Member Lingle stated that, if the funding would be worked out in the development agreement, and since it is already at a service level “F,” every Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 6 purchaser of a pad within the ODP would probably share the infrastructure improvement costs on a pro rata basis. The motion was approved 6-1, with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. Project: Interstate Lands, Overall Development Plan, #49-02A Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for permitted land uses. The proposed uses are single-family residential, multi-family residential, a neighborhood center, and a neighborhood park on 177.5 acres. The property is located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. It is zoned C – Commercial, E – Employment, LMN – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and UE – Urban Estate. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planner Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the property is surrounded, for the most part, by vacant land. On the east side of I-25, there are some Urban Estate residential properties. Poudre School District also owns a site to the south. Just to the west, there is large-lot single-family residential for the most part. Directly to the north is a business industrial park that is essentially fully developed. Planner Olt stated that the ODP shows uses consistent with the zoning and Structure Plan. The northwest portion of the property will contain a neighborhood park. Boxelder Creek, a significant drainage way, exists along the north, northeast portion of the property. Access to the site will occur from East Prospect, up the Frontage Road into the properties to the west of the Frontage Road. There are no access points from this site to the west for a couple reasons. First, the UE zone district is exempt from the connectivity standards in Section 3.6 of the Land Use Code. Based on prior agreements between this property owner and the residential properties to the west, there would be no vehicular connections to those existing Larimer County subdivisions. There does not seem to be any health, safety, or welfare concerns with not making those connections. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 7 Joe Carter, Cityscape Urban Design representing the applicant, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that no street or pedestrian connectivity to the west is being proposed. The two points of access into the site are from Prospect Road and from the Frontage Road across a bridge. No connectivity is required through the neighborhood for fire access. He stated that there was a small neighborhood park proposed in the center of the development as well as a proposal for a City park on the site. He added that the applicant is aware of the adequate public facilities and lighting issues and that those will be addressed at PDP submittal. Member Gavaldon stated that he asked for long-range traffic information at worksession and asked if that was available. Matt Delich, traffic engineer, replied that the traffic report for Paradigm Properties was dated May 2002. In October 2002, the guidelines were changed as far as doing traffic studies at a master traffic impact study level. When ODP traffic studies are done, they are called master traffic impact studies. Only link volumes are required and individual intersection levels of service are not required anymore. Member Gavaldon asked if Planner Olt was aware of this change. Planner Olt replied that he was not. Mr. Delich stated that the guidelines for the change are in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Chapter 4. Member Gavaldon stated that he was not aware of the changes and could not continue asking questions without all the information he was expecting. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he was aware of the change. Director Gloss stated that Mike Herzig, the project manger for the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, did come before the Board at previous worksessions and presented information, including an outline for the criteria for transportation impact analyses. He acknowledged that it had been a couple years since Mr. Herzig last spoke. Mr. Delich stated that the Board would get all the detailed traffic information when the PDP comes in. This is an ODP proposal, and a master transportation impact study was conducted as per standards. Public Input Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 8 Lloyd Warington, 713 Verde Avenue, stated that the map on the letter sent to affected property owners was poor in that it did not show the two major waterways on the site and was inaccurate in its depiction of the frontage roads. He stated concern about increased traffic with the new development and about the connections which he anticipated would be made to his subdivision, Sunrise Acres. Walt Cummings, 729 Sherry Drive, stated that he was concerned about Locust and Sherry which both dead-end right into the site. Public Input Closed Planner Olt stated that the map referred to by Mr. Warington is directly from our GIS software and is not intended to go to the level of detail of the site-specific development plan. It is primarily intended to show zoning and major features. Planner Olt stated that, in response to questions about where to get more information at the neighborhood meeting, he told the neighbors that the Current Planning Office is open to show plans but that he has not received any calls. The nature of discussion at the neighborhood meeting was really about the connectivity issues and the plans show that those connections are not going to be made to the west or north to Sunrise Acres or Boxelder Estates. It is part of staff’s recommendation that those connections not be made. Member Craig stated that perhaps the neighbors concerns are for the future development, that the connections may be made. She asked Planner Olt to explain what an ODP does and what happens at the PDP level. Planner Olt replies that an Overall Development Plan sets forth certain land uses on a piece of property in a bubble-diagrammatic form. It certainly identifies the nature of the uses and certain residential densities that would be proposed on the property. It does not vest the right to build anything at this point in time – it is really a guiding document as to what the nature of development would be on the property once we get site-specific development plans in the form of a Project Development Plan and Final Compliance Plan in phases. Neither of those have been proposed. If any of the streets were to be connected, they would be local streets and they are not shown at this level of development. The staff recommendation is that those street connections will not be made. Director Gloss stated that the Project Development Plans will be submitted for each phase of the development and are critiqued and evaluated relative to their compliance with the Overall Development Plan. There is a public notification for each PDP that comes in so neighbors within close proximity to each phase will be receiving a mail notice that an application has been submitted and they will have that opportunity to come to a public hearing and make comment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 9 Member Craig stated that she wanted to clarify that the connections are not legally required in the UE zone. Planner Olt replied that the UE zoning district does exempt a project from meeting those requirements of the connectivity standards. However, it is not necessarily a legal issue. If staff really felt like it was critical to provide other connections for traffic circulation, it could be done. They are exempt if it is acceptable and appropriate. Member Craig summarized that at the PDP level, connections could be made but at this point in time, and staff does not foresee any changes in the future, staff is not going to recommend that connections be made and the applicant is not going to recommend that connections be made. Planner Olt replied that staff does not envision reasons to require connections that we don’t feel are necessary at this point in time, at the ODP level and therefore staff does not feel they will be necessary at the PDP level. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the property to the north was Urban Estate. Planner Olt replied that a portion of it is UE and that there are extenuating circumstances in the form of two significant ditches that are running east-west across the north side of that property. Easements and rights-of-way were not accommodated in the development to the north for street connections south into this property. Chairperson Torgerson asked, per the Public Input, about the flood plain and its effect on the property. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Department, stated that the flood plain has been an issue and the applicant has actually accommodated a higher flow rate which could be used in the future. There are a lot of flows coming from Boxelder on the other side of the Interstate and the applicant has actually already modeled some of the devices at the ODP level. Member Craig asked about the C – Commercial area and the flood plain issues there. Mr. Schlueter replied that it would probably just need to be filled to get the area out of the flood plain. Member Craig asked if they were allowed to put fill in to change the flood plain status. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Schlueter replied that there is a flood way and flood fringe designation on this site and that they would be filling in the fringe. Member Schmidt asked which of the PDPs that were anticipated would be Type II (Planning and Zoning Board) hearings as opposed to Type I hearings. Planner Olt replied that it is difficult to determine because in any of the zoning districts, there are Type I and Type II uses. It will really depend on what they want to put in each of the zone districts. Member Schmidt asked if there was phasing with the project. Planner Olt replied that there is not at the ODP level. Member Schmidt asked where the neighborhood center might be. Mr. Carter replied that the neighborhood center is located in the lower section, just south of the yellow bubble on the site plan. Member Schmidt asked if that would possibly have a grocery store type use. Mr. Carter replied that whatever uses are allowed within a neighborhood center are possible; however, he did not believe there was enough space for a grocery store. The site is perhaps only a couple acres in size. Planner Olt stated that it would be more like a neighborhood convenience center, not a neighborhood center, which is typically up to 15 or 20 acres in size. Member Lingle asked if the neighborhood would be as opposed to a pedestrian or bicycle connection as they are to vehicular street connections. Bob Sweet (?), 824 Verde, stated that Locust basically dead-ends at this property and stated that people would use the neighborhood to cut off some distance. Member Lingle reiterated his question, asking if the neighborhood was as opposed to having pedestrian and bike trail connections as they are to having street connections. Mr. Sweet replied that they are opposed to both. They do not have any sidewalks now and do not want any. They do not want this new project to infringe on their subdivision. Bonnie Newton, 3418 Boxelder Drive, representing the Cooper Slough Association, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that the Cooper Slough group specifically bought that land which is now the buffer zone, so that they Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 11 wouldn’t ever have connectivity with whatever project was set to be on that property. She stated that they really did not want bikes or walking paths on the property and would prefer no connectivity at all. Member Craig asked if the vicinity map showed Sherry Street. Planner Olt replied that Sherry Street is the first street running north-south just west of the north point of the Interstate Land property. He showed the street on the vicinity map. Member Craig stated that she hoped staff would add the consideration of that street to the Traffic Impact Studies so it can be addressed if necessary. She asked that staff, specifically Ward Stanford, address that concern at PDP level. Member Craig asked if the residential would come in as a Type I use and, if so, would it pass the adequate public facility or are the deficiencies out there such that they would not. City Engineer Marc Virata stated that it would be a matter of how many residences are proposed and where their trips take them to see how much traffic is being generated. He stated that it would be difficult to give an answer without knowing where they want to develop or where the trips are going. It could be conceivable that most of the trips are Interstate traffic. He added that the interchange would have to be fixed with just about any development. Member Craig asked if anything could come in at Interstate Lands until the interchange has been addressed. Mr. Virata replied that likely not, from a residential standpoint. There may be some commercial-type use that keeps the number of trips under a certain threshold. Providing signals at those intersections will help only for a certain amount of time before other major improvements will be needed. Member Craig stated that the difference between this project and Paradigm is that this does have residential which, too, will not pass adequate public facilities. She asked how it could be documented that the residents will only be interstate commuters. Mr. Delich stated that it cannot be documented and added that when the traffic study is started for the PDP, he will have a scoping meeting with either Ward Stanford or Eric Bracke to come up with a trip distribution. Not all trips will go to the Interstate. A trip distribution model will be used to distribute trips around the region. Member Gavaldon thanked Mr. Virata for the detail. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 12 Chairperson Torgerson asked if extending Stockton to the property was ever considered. He stated that though he appreciated the neighbors concerns about not wanting traffic through their neighborhoods, pushing all the traffic onto streets that are already not functioning well is not necessarily a good idea. Mr. Virata replied that there were lots that would prevent any type of connection from Stockton. He added that that could be explored at a PDP level. A connection involving Stockton out to the site would really require the purchasing of right-of-way. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the project met the connectivity requirement to the north. Because the property to the north is not Urban Estate, it is not exempt from that requirement. Planner Olt replied that there is no Urban Estate to the north, northeast of the site. A business/industrial park right-of-way is not provided at this point in time. Physical constraints are present as well in the form of the two ditches. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the connectivity standard exempts properties that have to build a bridge to make connections. Planner Olt replied that staff looked at circumstances and felt that those connections really were not feasible. However, connectivity is not exempted if bridges or rights-of-way are required. Member Schmidt stated that part of the problem is that Mulberry is so poor. Creating more roads to get people to Mulberry, which is already a mess, is not necessarily going to help. Chairperson Torgerson stated that regardless of whether Mulberry is functioning properly or not, the Board has to enforce the Code. Mr. Virata stated that, the way he reads the Code, he did not see where that connection is required. In Section 3.6.3(F), the Code states that all development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets, stubbed to the boundary of the development plan, by previously approved development plans or existing development. The previous development did not provide that stub connection for us to say that this project should connect to it. The Code goes on to say that all development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels. Director Gloss stated that there is a building located on the lot where the street would be extended to the north. That is a practical consideration where right-of- way would have to be brought through those lots by condemning them. This is probably an atypical, costly process. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 13 Chairperson Torgerson stated that he did not necessarily think that connection should be made in the short term, but perhaps in the future when this industrial park redevelops. However, if that is not a Code requirement, it cannot be required by the Board. Planner Olt noted that the ODP does not preclude the ability to provide a right-of- way within this development for Stockton to go through. Member Schmidt moved for approval of Interstate Lands, Overall Development Plan, File #49-02A, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that the adequate public facilities is such an issue in the area and that she hoped that the developers would get together and try to solve it rather than trying to avoid meeting the requirements. She thanked the neighbors for coming to speak. She encouraged them to stay vigilant for the upcoming PDPs. Member Gavaldon asked if traffic impact studies could be discussed at a worksession with respect to the changes made for the ODP traffic studies. Chairperson Torgerson stated that it would be discussed. Member Lingle stated that he agreed with Member Craig in that the ODP does address the neighbors concerns; however, he stated concern about the planning objectives of this being a walkable, livable, and varied neighborhood. Not having the bicycle and pedestrian connections is frustrating. He stated that he would support looking at some sensitive bike and pedestrian connections, though he was fine with the street infrastructure not being connected through. Chairperson Torgerson and Member Gavaldon stated agreement with Member Lingle. Chairperson Torgerson asked about connectivity on the east side of the property, and if they met the 660 or 1320 foot street spacing requirement. Planner Olt replied that there is one connection on the east side and that the applicant did submit a request for alternative compliance for that one connection (as opposed to more). As staff started looking at the Code, we realized that the Frontage Road, being a collector street, really does not fit any of the sections of the Code where that connectivity can be required. Staff is supporting the ODP Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 15, 2004 Page 14 with connectivity as shown, and it does not require a determination on an alternative compliance request. Mr. Virata stated that the intent of the 660 requirement is to provide connections to future potential developable land. For this property to provide connections out to the Frontage Road, that would imply that the area east of the Frontage Road is potentially developable land, which it is not, as it is basically the highway. Member Schmidt commented that she felt the parties had worked will together to make this plan work. More issues might come up at the PDP stage, which will hopefully be dealt with equally well. The motion was approved 6-1, with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.