Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 56-98B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Bo, J Minutes April 15,1999 Page 8 of 8 Other Business: Bob Blanchard reviewed the other business concerning the upcoming worksession. He also discussed a memorandum about the proposed budget. Lastly he reported the need for appointments to necessary committees. Member Colton recommended that someone be temporarily appointed to the necessary committees. The Board wanted to re-evaluate the committee appointments at the time of the new Board member appointment in June. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Planning and Zoning Boded Minutes April 15,1999 Page 7 of 8 The motion was approved 4-0, with Member Carpenter claiming a conflict. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Rigden Farm ODP, #56-98B, with the condition that the phrase "potential commuter bicycle trail to be owned and maintained by the City of Fort Collins" as labeled on the ODP be replaced with the phrase "future potential trail". Member Davidson seconded the motion. Member Craig asked if a friendly amendment could be made to the ODP label removing the word "potential" and stating only "future trail". Member Gavaldon accepted the amendment. Member Davidson asked to further add after the wording "future trail", the wording "(ownership and maintenance to be determined at a later date)". Member Davidson moved for approval of the Rigden Farm ODP, #56-98B, under the condition that the phrase "potential commuter bicycle trail to be owned and maintained by the City of Fort Collins" as labeled on the ODP be replaced with the phrase "future trail with ownership and maintenance to be determined at a later date". Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon complimented the work the developer had done on the project. Member Davidson also complimented the developer for saving the trees and the historical buildings. Member Craig wanted to thank the City staff for saving the trees, but she also hoped to save the other grove of trees. Member Colton thought it was a very good plan. He did want the City staff to monitor the County Road 9 situation. He felt the plan met the criteria for ODP plans. Member Davidson agreed with Member Colton. The motion was approved 4-0, with Member Carpenter claiming a conflict. Planning and Zoning Bc Minutes April 15,1999 Page 6 of 8 the level of service needs. He wanted to be sure that the developer would not be locked into the improvements before they were needed and when there would be no revenue to complete them. He feared that the condition would cause the improvements to be constructed way before they would be needed, which would cause severe problems for the project to be built out. Jim Sell asked Eric Bracke how the situation would be monitored. Eric Bracke stated that they could meter the flow to monitor the conflicts or accidents on the one -lane bridge. Jim Sell asked Bob Blanchard if the issue would be addressed at PDP whether reviewed as a Type I or Type II. Bob Blanchard responded that it would be considered at the PDP level and he discussed the problems with placing that kind of condition on the project due to the differences between the anticipated Phase 2 and the reality of Phase 2. It would be more appropriate to set a condition based on the identifiers on the ODP map, not the traffic study phasing map. Member Colton asked who would be paying for the realignment of the roadways. Sheri Wamhoff responded that it would be the developer for the local street portion and the street oversizing fund for the other portion of the arterial. Member Colton asked how the funding of the Timberline and Drake Road improvements would be split. Matt Baker stated that the developer was responsible for the local street portion of any adjacent roadway and the City would pay for approximately 78 percent of the roadway. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval to the alternative compliance of Section 3.6.3(C) and 3.6.3(D) for the area inside the curb on Drake Road and County Road 9 because the plan is equal to or better than a plan that complies with the standard. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0, with Member Carpenter claiming a conflict. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval to the alternative compliance of Section 3.6.3(C) for County Road 9 south of the intersection with Rigden Parkway because the plan is equal to or better than the standard. Member Davidson seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Boaid Minutes April 15,1999 Page 5 of 8 Troy Jones responded that there would be pedestrian/bicycle bridges at the points where the trail crossed the Canal. Member Davidson asked about the bike path to the west. Troy Jones stated that there would be a local street with a bike lane that would cross there. Member Davidson asked if the City Park, that was going to be built would be shared with the high school. Troy Jones responded that the City only had the funds for the park by the school. Within the development there would be a private neighborhood park that would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Sheri Wamhoff added that the school ball field already extends onto the city property, so it would be a shared space. Member Davidson asked if there had been options for Johnson's Farm to be preserved at its current location. Scott Griffin stated that the formal recommendation from the LPC was to move the house, barn and the surrounding structure and place them in the same configuration elsewhere. Member Craig inquired about the alignment of the trails. Kathleen Reavis noted that the trail alignments would be worked out at the PDP stage. At one specific location, the canal and the pond would be separated enough so there would be room for a safe trail connection. Member Gavaldon asked Eric Bracke what the process would be to tie the improvements for County Road 9 to the second phase of the development as a condition of approval. Eric Bracke responded that it would not be a constraint for the City. Matt Baker added that the new alignment of County Road 9 would be an asset to the community. Member Gavaldon asked the applicant if there would be any constraints. Jim Sell, consultant for the developer, wanted to make sure they were not being tied into a situation that would kill the project. The improvements should be made along with Planning and Zoning Bc Minutes April 15,1999 Page 4 of 8 Scott Griffin reviewed the proposed areas for each phase. Member Craig asked about the one -lane bridge on County Road 9 that would be left as it stood during Phase 1 of the development. Scott Griffin responded that by the time the housing would be started for Phase 1, they would already be starting on the groundwork and roadwork for Phase 2. More detail would be discussed at the PDP stage of each phase. Member Colton asked if the first phase of the project reached high traffic levels and phase two was held up by something, would there be a criteria that the developer would have to put in the road improvements before phase two was started. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department, responded that the projections showed that the one -lane bridge would be a problem, but they would watch that closely. If it became a safety problem, they could make the developer start the improvements prior to the second phase. Member Davidson commented that with the added commercial and industrial traffic the bridges were a major concern. Member Craig asked about the intersection of Prospect and Timberline Roads. Eric Bracke responded that Timberline Road needed to be a four -lane road and working on that would be a long term continued project. Matt Delich, traffic consultant for the developer, added that the adjacent developments were adding to the oversizing fund, but the widening of the intersection would still be capital improvement project. Matt Baker also added that the majority of the money would be from capital and the intersection in question was not currently in the oversizing budget, which would run out in 2007. Eric Bracke stated that Timberline Road was an important commuter roadway. The adjacent developments do not have that much of an impact comparatively. Member Gavaldon noted that he didn't think the intersection at Timberline and Prospect Roads should be included in the discussion of this project. He felt money should be set aside for the intersection and bridge along with funding from development closer to the intersection. Member Davidson asked about the Foothills Basin Drainage Canal. Would there be footbridges over that area. Planning and Zoning Boa.J Minutes April 15,1999 Page 3 of 8 Public Comment: Martha Roden, 1967 Massachusetts Street, expressed her concern of growing development. She felt the property needed to be preserved. Troy Jones reminded the Board of the e-mail he received from a citizen who could not attend. Roman Clojay, student, asked to view the site shots of the area. Discussion: Troy Jones reviewed all of the site shots of the project Matt Baker, Engineering Department, addressed the street oversizing concerns and constraints for Rigden Farms. There was a right-of-way issue on the USDA federally owned land. There was also a concern about Cal Johnson's house, which had some issues about historic preservation and oversizing. The Landmark Preservation Committee tried to design around it, but ended up voting to move the house, which would then preserve the ash trees within a large 30-foot wide median. The roads would be created to arterial standards. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Department, stated that the sidewalks, bikeways and pedestrian enhancements would be completed with the first phase of the project. Member Gavaldon asked Matt Delich the safety of the switch between the old County Road 9 and the new County Road 9 and what would become of the old road. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department, responded that County Road 9 would become a private access road for the adjacent property owner. She added that they were still unsure if they would cut off the old road, but as the development progressed the engineers would address it. Member Gavaldon asked if the developer could answer when this part of the development would progress. Scott Griffin, speaking for the developer, replied that they would be completing the Drake and County Road 9 improvements with Phase 2 and there would be some connections that would need to be considered. He mentioned the estimated time frame left for the gravel mine would be until approximately the year 2004. The completion of Phase 2 was estimated to be in the year 2001 or 2002. So there would be a time of overlap that was a concern. The design of Timberline Road was a part of Phase 1. Member Colton asked for a review of the anticipated phases Planning and Zoning B(_ J Minutes April 15,1999 Page 2 of 8 Project: Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan, #56-98B Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for a 308- acre mixed -use development. The site is bound by Timberline Road to the west, Drake Road to the north, the Fossil Creek Inlet Canal and County Road 9 to the east with Dakota Ridge and Stone Ridge Residential Developments to the south. The site has four zoning districts: NC, Neighborhood Commercial, MMN Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, LMN Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and RC River Conservation District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, gave a presentation describing the project, the location and the surrounding area. He pointed out the four zoning districts. He reviewed the eight criteria an overall development plan was to be reviewed against. He reviewed the site shots available for the Board. Troy Jones also reviewed the two issues of alternative compliance. He referenced the memorandum he gave to the Board a few minutes prior to the meeting. He noted a wording change of a "potential trail owned and maintained by the City" to "future potential trail". The issue of the trail would be discussed at approximately the second phase of the development. Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning reviewed the criteria of review for overall development plans, instead of project development plans. Historic resources would not be addressed at the overall development stage. Connectivity was a major criterion of the ODP. Member Craig asked about a body of water seen on other site plans, but not shown on the ODP plans. Troy Jones responded that the body of water would not longer exist in the ODP. It was a man-made body of water and was not significant to Natural Resources. Jim Sell, applicant, gave a presentation describing Rigden Farms as being a model of City Plan. He discussed the liability issues of the trail, but stated again that it would be discussed at a later date. He showed a character sketch of the commercial area, which would look like the downtown area. He showed a sketch of the alleyways and narrow streets with detached sidewalks. Mr. Sell described some of the uses and then opened the discussions for questions. Lj 0 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice Chair: Sallv Craig Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Phone: (H) 225-2760 Phone: (H) 484-9417 Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Gavaldon, Davidson, and Colton. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Jones, Blanchard, Eckman, Wamhoff, Reavis, Bracke, Schlueter, McCallum, Olt, Baker, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the December 18, 1997, January 15, 1998 and January 21, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (continued) 2. #54-98 McClelland Office Park II — PDP 3. #45-98 Brazil 99 Renovation, (Campus West Theatre Redevelopment)- PDP (continued) 4. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval Discussion Agenda: 5. #56-98B Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan Staff continued items 1 and 3. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 2 and 4. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.