Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL (JOHNSON PROPERTY) - ODP - 32-01A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 17 Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she appreciated the project was going to pass and that the Land Use Code does not include means by which to look at adequate public facilities at the ODP stage. It is bothersome that developers are going to put forth a lot of money and not be able to develop the land the way they think they are from the ODP. She would like to see these issues addressed at the ODP stage. Member Colton stated that he would trust staff to decide when to have Sharp Point Drive go through, however, it is bothersome that the Board cannot state, at the CDP level, that the road must go through after a certain number of building permits are issued. Mr. Colton also stated that it is unfortunate we've come to the point where we are saying no to projects because of adequate public facilities; however, we knew this was going to be a problem. We were not aggressive enough on street oversizing fees to cover the impact of new traffic on existing intersections such as this one, Lemay and Vine, West Harmony, and so forth. This would have resulted in higher fees but we would likely have had money to pay for these types of improvements. Now it will be difficult to get voters to approve capital funding projects. Chairman Gavaldon stated concern about the adequate public facilities. He also stated concern over the master street plan, street pattern connectivity, and transportation connection to adjoining properties. He stated disagreement with the wording. Member Colton stated that it is important to stick to the adequate public facilities criteria in the Land Use Code in order to protect the public good. There may be attempts to weaken the adequate public facilities when these policies protect the citizens from the high rate of growth in lieu of the fact that we weren't charging high enough fees. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 16 Paul Eckman, City Attorney, replied that state vested rights do not occur until the final, site -specific development plan is approved. He also noted that it is a staff process to approve the final plan and issue building permits. Member Craig asked about connectivity and safety issues regarding Timberline narrowing from four lanes to two. Mr. Bracke replied that the road improvements for correcting the intersection would take it all the way to where it is four lanes now. The improvements that were done this summer were as a result of the Rigden Farm development. The next phase of the road construction will take it all the way. Member Meyer stated that she trusts the staff to protect her and the citizens. Member Colton asked if the applicant really understood what was happening with the adequate public facilities issues at Timberline and Prospect. The applicant replied that they are aware. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the alternative compliance needed to be voted on separately from the main motion. Mr. Eckman replied that they do need to be separate motions. Chairman Gavaldon stated his understanding that the intersection can sit for a while until the remedies are in place. Planner Jones stated that was correct, assuming there was no final approval. Sharp Point also becomes moot unless there is a vote approving funding of Sharp Point without development but that is not likely. Member Bernth moved for approval of the alternative compliance request for Section 3.6.3(C) for the intersection spacing along Timberline Road based on the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Johnson Property ODP, File #32-01A based on the findings of fact and conclusions of the staff report. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 15 Member Torgerson suggested that this issue may need to be discussed in future Land Use Code revisions. Planner Jones stated that staff has worked with the applicant on this project to protect the historic structures. Member Meyer asked if there were only a certain number of building permits that could be taken out prior to certain improvements. Planner Jones replied that it is a common practice. Member Colton asked Mr. Bracke to reiterate the adequate public facilities policy. Mr. Bracke replied that the intersection of Prospect and Timberline has undergone a significant amount of growth in traffic over the last few years. The acceptable levels of service are considered D or better, on a scale from A to F. The intersection during A.M. and P.M. peak hours is at a level of service F which means the "adequate public facilities" ordinance goes into effect. This policy does not affect anything at the CDP level but building permits will not be able to be pulled until the intersection has had money appropriated for improvements. The developer also has the option to pay for the improvements, go in with other developers in the area to pay, or wait for capital funds to be appropriated. Capital projects are probably 3 to 5 years out, assuming they are approved. At this point, the development can proceed through the process but cannot build until that intersection is addressed. Member Colton asked at what point the APF issue would have to be addressed. Planning Director Gloss replied that the threshold is at the final plan stage. At the PDP, the plan would have to include the fully -designed (to standards) improvement but they would not necessarily have to fund it. They could not get a final plan or a building permit under the APF section of the Code unless the developer pays for the improvement or the money is appropriated by City Council. Member Colton asked about the PDP and final plan being the same. Mr. Gloss replied that it is at the discretion of the applicant to apply for both simultaneously. Typically, the PDP is approved, then the plans are finalized. Member Colton noted that the final plan process is a staff level review, not a Board hearing. Member Craig asked about vested rights. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Baker replied that we now have Level of Service standards and connectivity standards in the Land Use Code that require those connections to be in prior to development. The off -site connection across the tracks here is really an off -site improvement and is not really required of the developer to do that; it is just necessary for it to be done prior to the development proceeding. The developer can elect to make that connection in order to proceed with the development. Member Colton asked for assurance that the connection would be put in, regardless of how it is paid for. Member Torgerson stated that it wouldn't be a new practice for a certain number of building permits to trigger the road to be developed. Chairman Gavaldon asked Karen McWilliams of the Historic Preservation Department to speak to the historic preservation issue. Ms. McWilliams stated that there is no mechanism to worry about things such as historic buffers at the ODP level. It will be addressed at the PDP. The Historic Preservation Department can preserve and protect the Johnson Farm while waiting for the development to occur around it. The best mechanism is for the property owners to designate the property in order to become eligible for funding to help stabilize and restore the buildings. Chairman Gavaldon asked what would ensure the buildings would be protected in the time between now and designation and preservation. Ms. McWilliams replied that there is no mechanism that would guarantee that the property owners would designate the property in the future or that the buildings would still be standing when they do designate. If citizens are concerned, they can pursue a "non-consensual" designation, which is a designation that dies not have property -owner consent. This would take the project to the Landmark Preservation Commission who would then determine if designation would be appropriate. If so, the LPC would recommend to City Council that they consider a non-consensual designation. This would bring forth all the funding sources. This can be done at any time. Member Torgerson asked if significant historical resources are not ever taken into account at the ODP stage. Ms. McWilliams replied that there is no language to protect historic resources at the ODP stage in the Land Use Code. Planner Jones stated that the resource itself could be labeled at the ODP stage. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 13 Member Craig asked for assurance that a connection will be made. Mr. Baker replied that he was fairly certain this connection will be made before the development can proceed. Member Colton asked about project phasing and how much of the project could go in before the connection would have to be made. Mr. Baker replied that the traffic impact study for the project showed that the connection was not necessary so it would likely be the phases up against Sharp Point Drive and up against the tracks at the bottom of the hill that would require that connection to be made. Planning Director Gloss confirmed that statement. Member Colton stated concern with that issue. Planner Jones stated that, possibly as part of the development agreement, as the phases come in, an equitable amount for each of the phases to contribute to the crossing will be determined. Member Colton stated that he didn't want to see another Poudre Valley Hospital Harmony Campus situation where the road is not built out until the last phase of the CDP. There needs to be a clear plan that the crossing will happen and when, not just funding. Member Meyer stated that gridlock occurs after the first filing and the road is not usable after further filings. The issue needs to be dealt with immediately. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the Board could condition the project to require the road to be put in at the first phase. Planner Jones said he did not think the Board would be able to do that but referred the Board to Mr. Gloss' memo. The connection could not be required until a site -specific development plan is submitted and reviewed. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the PDP's would be Type I or Type II reviews. Planner Jones replied that it would depend on what exactly would be submitted. Member Bernth asked Mr. Baker to define the current mechanism for ensuring the connection. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ..February 21, 2002 Page 12 Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, gave the City presentation. The site is at the northeast corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road. The property was rezoned a few months ago. Many of the questions surrounded transportation issues, including adequate public facilities at the Prospect and Timberline intersection. The other issue was the extension of Sharp Point Drive into the site. It is identified on the Master Street Plan to continue to Drake. He added that Planning Director Gloss had written a memo regarding how adequate public facilities and street pattern and connectivity standards apply to an Overall Development Plan. Planner Jones stated that the Sharp Point connection will be paid for by the developer as part of the phase that is adjacent to that crossing on the site. The developer would then be eligible for repayment as development comes in across the railroad tracks between the current Midpoint extension and the tracks. The developer will pay for a large portion of the road improvements between the track crossing and the Midpoint dead end. Planner Jones stated, with respect to the adequate public facilities issue, that, as far as an Overall Development Plan is concerned, the Board must identify that there is a deficiency and acknowledge that no building permits will be issued until the problem is solved or until capital project funds have been allocated to make the improvements. Linda Bartlett, with the applicant James Company, opened her presentation up for questions due to the Board's familiarity with the project. Public Input There was no public input. Member Craig asked Matt Baker to discuss the Sharp Point issue Mr. Baker, of the Engineering Department, replied that it is an important roadway connection that is challenging due to topographical issues. There was some right-of- way reserved for the future street to make the connection across the tracks. As this project develops, the connectivity standards require the developer to have the connection in place prior to proceeding with the development phases. Sharp Point Drive is a collector street and there will be some Street Oversizing participation in that construction. The Engineering Department is also making contacts to get the appropriate regulations in place for the railroad crossing. Mr. Baker stated that he did not know exact timing for the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 11 designed school. Member Torgerson stated he is in enthusiastic support a project. dded that Fort Collins does have a school impact fee. Member stated that people's property taxes are far les an the cost of sending a child to a dayc center. The school district is not getti paid as much as the daycare centers are p hild. Member Craig echoed Mr. Kapla ' concern out Cambridge. She stated that she did not vote in favor of the ODP's for Wi ok or Brookfield. She stated that the developers in the area should look a n ambridge. Chairman Gavaldon stated t staff needs to alley the concerns with the traffic on Cambridge. He added t he school district has done a Ilent work, a great presentation, and good community outreach. Member C on stated that it would be great if Ms. Smith could have one son with who discuss her road issues. He suggested that Mr. Bracke talk with her. motion was approved 7-0. Member Carpenter stated a conflict with the Johnson Property ODP. Project: Johnson Property — Overall Development Plan Project Description: Request for a 217-acre, mixed -use Overall Development Plan located at the northeast corner of Drake Road and Timberline Road. The proposal includes between 980 and 1,359 dwelling units in single family and multi -family configurations. The proposal also includes the adaptive reuse of the historic Jessup Farm farmstead, al 0-acre city park, and limited commercial uses as part of a neighborhood center. The site is zoned I, Industrial; MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood; LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood; and UE, Urban Estate. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Johnson Property Overall Development Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 2 Member Carpenter declared a conflict on Item #3, Rigden Farm, 61h Filing, Modification of Standards. Project: Rigden Farm, 6th Filing — Modification of r Standards Project Description: Request to modify Section 3.5.2(D)(3) of the Land Use Code to allow the side yard setback for detached rear yard garages to be zero (0) feet on fourteen specific lots. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification request. Written Comments and Other E Member Torgerson stated that thebnly concern he had with the item was that the garages follow the same standards that multi -family garages are required to in the Land Use Code. / Troy Jones, city planner. stated that the polidant was willing to adhere to the multi- family garage door standards. / Member Torgerson moved for approval of Item #3, Rigden Farm, 6th Filing, Modification of Standards. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Colton asked if there was a Code section that could be cited regarding the multi -family garage standards. Planner Jones stated the Code section as 3.5.2(F), "Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages." Member Torgerson reworded his motion with the condition that the Code Section 3.5.2(F) is adhered to. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Meyer, Bernth, Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, and Gavaldon. Staff Present: Gloss, Olt, Shepard, Jones, Stringer, Wamhoff, Virata, Bracke, Baker, McWilliams, and Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the December 7, 2000 and February 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ02-02 — Easement Vacation 3. #56-980 Rigden Farm, 6th Filing — Modification of Standards (Pulled to Discussion — Torgerson) 4. #45-01 Recommendation to City Council on Bella Vista Rezoning (Pulled to Discussion — citizen) Discussion Agenda: 5. Poudre School District 2004 High School — Site Plan Advisory Review 6. Johnnson Property — Overall Development Plan A citizen asked to have Item #4, the Bella Vista Rezoning pulled to discussion. Member Torgerson asked to have item #3, Rigden Farm, 6th Filing, Modification of Standards pulled to discussion. Member Carpenter declared a conflict on Item #2, Resolution PZ02-02 — Easement Vacation. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Item #2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.