Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHENANDOAH PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... SECOND (CONTINUED) P & Z BOARD HEARING - 47-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 19 neighborhood and particularly likes the attention given to the pedestrian/bike route to help move the people within and around the area. Member Colton commented that this appears to be a good development and believed it should be built out as planned. He added that the street oversizing fees need to be addressed through the City Plan. He continued that the school issue might put some pressure on the state legislature to put impact fees not only for school sites but for the school themselves as opposed to making those who already live here pay for new schools due to new growth. Chairperson Bell commented that the some of the discrepancies in the system need to be discussed and hopes that citizens will continue to bring up these points and as the Board progress with their new thinking and planning they can address some of these issues more adequately in the future. Member Gavaldon commented that the traffic issue is important. He added that traffic design and calming into this area would be a plus in the future. He recognized the points by the citizens in that sensible planning is important and their input is paramount. Discussions with the neighborhood is also paramount. Member Davidson commented that he would like to see a mechanism to deal with the open space issue in the sense that when open space is given over to the city, that it runs along a major artery, no improvements are required by the developer. He does not agree with this. Open space is part of the overall development and that development borders on those roads so the developer should incur some of the cost not just the city. They are not only getting out of paying for improvement of the roads but sometimes getting higher density bonuses for that open space. The motion passed 5-0. Member Weitkunat moved to recommend approval of the variance for the solar orientation of Shenandoah PUD Preliminary. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:20 a.m. G Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August12,1996 Page 18 the developer comes back with an amendment but the developer is committed to building. Chairperson Bell had concerns that there would be three different day cares within these developments. Mr. Vaught replied that the Registry Ridge day care site has been placed under contract by a church school day care center. However, he could not speak for the Dan Jensen development. He added that the day care for Shenandoah will be located centrally to the project as well as with some visibility from College because this might help market it. It is also tied into the network of trails that would lead over to the park and the future school site, as well as adjacent to the office park. Logical progression of the development of the site would be to the south with the second phase of the business park occurring next. The park site and the future extension of Avondale would then bring in the multi -family area because the park site would be developed with this proposal. This would leave one small area outside the Ridgewood Hills PUD Phase II that could also be developed to finish everything within the loop. The neighborhood center or the employment area would be the next logical step of development. It is the intention of his client to start one building of the office building upon final approval of the site plan. Member Gavaldon asked if the city is obligated to install traffic signals at County Road 32 and Victoria if there is no need for them. Mr. Jones replied that the traffic signals will not be installed until they meet specific warrant criteria which is based upon traffic volumes, delay or accident history. This development is 111 dwelling units which is about 2,000 trips per day to be generated from the commercial and residential areas. That number of trips themselves would not warrant the traffic signal to be installed at this time. However, with the connection back over to the collector system on Avondale, it will allow an opportunity for the residents of the Ridgewood Hills subdivision to transverse through the Shenandoah subdivision to have access back to College Avenue. At that time, depending on the amount of traffic that is generated from those developments, would determine if a traffic signal would be needed. Member Weitkunat moved to approve the Shenandoah PUD Preliminary. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat commented that this looks like a neighborhood to her and what the city is trying to achieve. There is great street systems established, a good internal Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 17 commented that the Board has the power to deny this project and he urged the Board to use that power. Pat Ridge, resident of Regina Estates, viewed this proposed development as a big improvement over what they have originally been reviewing and protesting mainly because of the traffic light. Development will occur and the neighborhood is attempting to make the best of the growing area. Jeff Wellman, 1504 West Trilby Road, had concerns about traffic. He stated that if traffic lights are placed on College Avenue, traffic will go to Trilby then to Shields Street. Shields Street is already heavily congested. Citizen Input was closed at this time. Ms. Liley rebutted that Policy 19 has been completed. The LDGS is the result of Policy 19. Policy 27 was discussed with regards to services and the question was asked how does one know the services are available. There are documents from all the entities that say those services are available. In regards to the Density Chart, she stated that point is that the city is not requiring the dedication. The LDGS is a sophisticated land use system which permits developers to look at the kind of project goals they want to meet and then fit them within the points that one is permitted to take. She added that the Thompson R2-J school district bond issue is to go to the November election and is under consideration by the Board of Education of Thompson R2-J and the decision will be made by September. She emphasized that there is capacity at the elementary school level although it might involve bussing as it does throughout both school districts. Chairperson Bell asked if a solar variance is needed for this project. Mr. Duvall responded yes, a solar variance is needed. Mr. Vaught stated that previous plans requested 45% solar lots and, through some redesign, this has been increased to 59%. The Staff Report very clearly addressed the solar variance request. Chairperson Bell commented that there needs to be a reasonable reply to the question as to when a neighborhood shopping center might be built. Ms. Liley responded that she discussed this with the developer and his best estimate would be in 5-6 years for this to fully build out. She stated that the operative thing is that it is part of an approved ODP so it clearly is planned and would have to built unless Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 15 Chairperson Bell asked for clarification of how far the South College Access Plan has been planned. Fred Jones, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations, replied that the existing South College Access Control Plan goes to Trilby Road and not beyond that. However, they have contact the Department of Transportation on these access points (Victoria Estates and County Road 32). The city does have an agreement with the D.O.T. currently with the installation of a traffic signal at County Road 32 and US 287. D.O.T. had preliminarily agreed to signalization at that half mile point from Trilby to County Road 32. Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Jones to address the traffic link between Provincetowne and Ridgewood Hills. Mr. Jones replied that the Colorado Department of Transportation has stated that they prefer there not be an access point to Provincetowne back to College Avenue. If there were access, they would prefer that it come off of Trilby Road. The natural areas would preclude the city from having an access down to County Road 32. So, primarily the access points for Provincetowne would come off of Lemay Avenue or Trilby Road. Member Colton commented that it appears to be a good plan if you do not look at the fact of the serious concerns of the schools in Loveland. The developer has done everything that they can possibly do but there is something wrong with planning when one relies on a $50M bond issue to take care of an over capacity situation. Somehow this needs to be resolved. Chairperson Bell commented that she had concerns about the health of US 287 as a commuter access route and the more lights that are installed, the longer it will take to get to a southern destination. The motion passed 4-1 with Member Colton in the negative. SHENANDOAH PUD - PRELIMINARY - #47-95 Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, gave a brief summary of the proposed development which included the location of the single family area, the relocation of the neighborhood shopping center, the size of the lots, the park and the open space and the office park.