Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH FOURTH FILING - PDP - PDP130014 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 5 that is appropriate and acceptable to the public and that he is pleased with the consistent and detailed manner in which the plans have been proposed. Member Hart made a motion that, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions on pages 15, 16, and 17 of the Staff Report, the Board should approve the Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing #PDP130014, including the modifications to standards 3.2.3(C) Solar -Oriented residential Lots, 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses in E Zone, 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity in E Zone, and 4.27 (13)(3)(a)(1) Single -Family lot size in the employment zone. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. The motion was passed 4:0. Member Carpenter returned to the hearing at 6:58pm. Project: Front Range Community College Integrated Technology Building Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130006 Project Description: This is a request to construct a 29,000 square foot Integrated Technology Building on the Front Range Community College's (FRCC) Larimer Campus. The new building includes lab space for instruction and training, multiple support classrooms and staff offices that support the Integrated Technology Program, which provides instruction in welding, automotive and clean technology trades. The new building is proposed to be located over an existing surface parking lot on the east side of the campus. FRCC proposes a minimum of a 70 foot setback from the Coventry Subdivision to the east, and that will include a landscaped bufferyard and pedestrian trail. Recommendation: That the Board find the three criteria of the SPAR have been met. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Secretary Sanchez -Sprague stated that we received an email from Fay Baker regarding the South Shields traffic. A member of the audience submitted a copy of photos of campus areas in question. The photos were passed around to board members and will be marked Exhibit 2. Planning Manager Gloss gave a presentation of the proposal for a new technology building on the Larimer campus of FRCC. This project is subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR), which is different from the typical process. The SPAR is the city's response to a state statute which allows public entities to have their projects reviewed relative to their comprehensive plan, and, more specifically, under three criteria: the location, character, and extent of the application relative to that adopted comprehensive plan. The planning staff at the City of Ft Collins has performed an analysis based on these criteria. Bruce Walters, Campus Vice President for Front Range Community College (FRCC) Larimer Campus, gave a presentation of the technology program. FRCC was originally built as a vocational training center for three school districts. Today there are 350-400 high school students on campus daily. The campus has grown significantly with a 25% enrollment growth over the last five years. They have hired an architect to devise a master plan, but this plan indicated a space deficit of approximately 90,000 square feet for the existing enrollment population. Safety of students has also become an issue. The new building will replace a building that was built in the 1970s. The plan is to use every building for current and proposed needs, and the new building is not intended to promote an increase in enrollment. Their Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 4 City Planner Holland responded that he did not have exact numbers for densities in surrounding neighborhoods, but he said the lot sizes were consistent with this development. He knew the densities were somewhat lower but not significantly with comparison to this development. Member Hart asked how far the development was from the railroad tracks. City Planner Holland responded that they are approximately 75 feet from the rear property lot lines. He also estimated that the distance from this development to the surrounding neighborhoods is between 75 and150 feet. Member Kirkpatrick asked City Planner Holland if he would be willing to expand on the bicycle facilities and opportunities. She noted that there are currently no park connections, and she would support such an expansion. Holland stated that the detached sidewalk systems provided rely on the street network. He said there could be some future opportunities to expand up through the multi -family development on the northwest corner. The railroad tracks, however, provide a challenge for westward development. A pedestrian/bicycle crossing was subsequently removed from a prior development plan because it wasn't feasible relative to the railroad. He suggested that a pedestrian crossing could be something to consider in the future, perhaps using some of the green space to the north of the property. Member Kirkpatrick also asked about the possibility of putting a multi -use path on the east side of the railroad. With consideration to the Safe Routes to School program, she stated that we should make every effort to provide a way for students to arrive safely at school. City Planner Holland responded by stating that he would have to consult with the Parks Department. He said that what is currently being provided now is a detached sidewalk along Joseph Allen Drive and on Drake Road. He suggested that it is possible that future developments may propose a wider sidewalk along Drake Road. Member Hart asked what proportion of traffic from the subdivision would be heading west on Drake Road. Mr. Stanford estimated that approximately 25% of the traffic would be heading east or west along Drake Road. He confirmed that Drake Road still has capacity for additional traffic. Board discussion Member Hart stated that he did not feel a real concern exists with the approval of this development. Member Schneider concurred. He asked about the connectivity from the Parkwood development to the Powerline Trail. Member Kirkpatrick stated that there is a connection to Tanglewood along with another connection on the north side of the apartments. Member Schneider stated that he did not see an issue with the project overall. He feels it is a good use of the property and is the best option available. City Deputy Attorney Eckman suggested that, in the interest of time, the Board consider approving the entire item along with all of its modifications in one motion, unless any of the Board members are inclined to disapprove. Member Smith recapped the Board's interest that this area be developed in a manner Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 3 Terence Hoagland, Principal of Vignette Studios, a local land planning and landscape architectural firm, stated he was there to represent the applicant on this project. He reviewed the project proposals and stated that the traffic study that had been done had not raised any additional issues. Public Input Nancy Wurst, 2406 Eastwood Drive, stated her concern that there would be traffic impacts on her street. She noted that the traffic study relating to the new apartments currently being built did not include her street (Eastwood Drive). She questioned whether turns would be possible to the right or left onto Drake Road and whether a traffic light would be installed to help with traffic flow. Peggy Grice, 2254 Eastwood Drive, stated her concern with traffic impacts. She stated that the current traffic exiting onto Drake is already congested, and the additional cars anticipated with the completion of the apartments currently being built plus the new homes associated with this project will produce even more traffic concerns. She is also concerned with what she considers to be small home sizes and the related density issues. End of Public Input Staff Response Ward Stanford, City Traffic Operations Department, stated that the City would be reluctant to put a signal too close to the railroad tracks for safety reasons. The signal would be too close to Timberline Drive to effectively move traffic east and west. The development has added east and west -bound turn lanes. He conceded that rush hour may present a challenge, as it is competing with traffic volume on Drake Road. He said another access point does currently exist at Timberline and Nancy Gray. He said development requirements have been outlined and studies performed. All mitigations have been done to date. Stanford said that, regarding Eastwood Drive specifically, it has been a road requiring work for several years, putting in stop signs over the years. Anyone having concerns should contact the Traffic Operations Department and work with them directly to resolve issues. Board Questions Member Hart questioned why there would be a significant amount of traffic on Eastwood Drive. Mr. Stanford responded that he wasn't aware of any reasons why this street should have more traffic than normal. Member Kirkpatrick acknowledged that the neighborhood school for this area is Riffenburgh. She suggested that a pedestrian or a multi -use connection be added to the main areas in that neighborhood. Mr. Stanford responded that this suggestion is a possibility for the future. City Planner Holland addressed the density concern by restating that the density proposed is average based on the code restrictions. He also restated that the proposal specifies a reduction in density for the employment zone portion of the project. Chair Smith inquired about the compatibility of density with the neighborhoods to the west of the proposed project. Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from November 14, 2013 2. Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning, #ANX130002 4. "Link-N-Greens" Community Commercial — Poudre River Zone District 6. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment, #MJA130006 Member Hart made a motion to approve the December 12, 2013, Consent agenda as stated including minutes from the November 14, 2013 hearing, Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning #ANX130002, Link-N-Greens Community Commercial — Poudre River Zone District, and Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment #MJA130006. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. The motion passed 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan, #PDP130014 5. Front Range Community College Integrated Technology Building Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130006 Project: Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan #PDP130014 Project Description: This is a request to subdivide 15.23 acres into 76 lots for single-family detached homes. The site is located along the west side of Joseph Allen Drive and is approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of Joseph Allen Drive and East Drake Road. A Union Pacific/Southern Pacific rail line is located approximately 75 feet west of the parcel. The project contains approximately 13 acres in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district and 2 acres in the E, Employment zone district. Recommendation: Approval Member Carpenter recused herself due to being in the notification area Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Secretary Sanchez -Sprague stated that an email had been received from Marsha Hultgren and a follow- up response to that email had been sent by City Planner Holland. Chair Smith requested that the citizen with the concerns indicate the specifics of those issues (to be marked Exhibit 1). Peggy Grice, 2254 Eastwood Drive, stated that her issues were with traffic, density, and landscaping. Based on these concerns, Chair Smith requested a full presentation from the City Planner. City Planner Holland gave an executive summary of the development plan, including a diagram of the area and a general overview of the site plan. He discussed the density, the lot sizes, and the percentage of secondary uses. He also discussed the traffic considerations, which are consistent with the overall development plan. He stated that the project took into consideration street enhancements to ensure good connections to Timberline Road and increase neighborhood exits. The traffic analysis did not recommend any additional intersection improvements. Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Absent: Hatfield and Heinz Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Holland, Gloss, Levingston, Beals, Sanchez - Sprague, Burnett, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non -agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. She noted that one item that was previously on the Discussion agenda has been requested to be moved to the Consent agenda, specifically the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if anyone present, citizens or Board members, wanted to remove any items from the Consent agenda. Citizen participation: Peggy Grice, 2254 Eastwood Drive, requested discussion of the Spring Creek Farms North PDP; therefore, this item will be pulled from the Consent agenda and added to the Discussion agenda.