Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 39-94A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 14 Member Craig stated that she was not originally going to support the project. It is positive to see the developers working with one another in a regional basis rather than project by project. She said it was important that this did not set a precedence and infrastructure needs to move up to development rather than having holes without proper infrastructure. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of the plan for alternative compliance in accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Staff Report, File #39-94. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Lind Property Overall Development Plan, File #39-94. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Bernth asked if the road alignment and connectivity issues could be discussed at a worksession in the future. Member Torgerson complimented Jim Sell Design and the connectivity through these developments. Chairman Gavaldon agreed with the development cooperation and stated that he would support the project. He added concern over adequate public facilities. He asked if this development should be penalized or if the next one should be. He complimented the traffic study but mentioned concerns over the failing intersections. Member Craig mentioned concerns over the adequate public facilities, particularly regarding transportation. She stated that Mr. Bracke assured her that the improvements will be made when needed and that development -based funding will be in place for those improvements. The motion was approved 4-0. Other Business The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 13 Member Craig asked about the alternative compliance of connectivity request. Planner Grubb replied that the requirement is a spacing of 660 feet. The application shows roads spaced at about 700 or 800 feet. Member Craig stated that the proposal shows three street connections and asked if there would be four if the standard were met. Planner Grubb stated that if they meet the standard, there would be six street connections. He added that the Code does not really provide any guidance on this because it does not say how properties outside the Urban Growth Area should be treated. There was no solid standard that could be applied in this situation. Member Craig asked about the contiguity waiver based on the regional trail. Planner Grubb replied that there would be a grade -separated crossing underneath County Road 52 as well as underneath County Road 11. Staff encouraged this developer to include a section of the trail with their development because they didn't want to exclude this neighborhood from a direct link to the regional trails system. The costs of the improvements can then be spread over three projects rather than two. There is between 700 and 800 feet of trail. Member Craig asked if the Master Plan showed this trail going through this corner and if the developers were paying for the two below -grade crossings or if they were providing the City with right-of-way. Planner Grubb replied that the developers would be funding the grade -separated crossings. Pete Wray, Advance Planning, replied that the regional trail is a significant element of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. It is an opportunity to link further development to the northwest. The Plan does show the trail going through a portion of the Lind parcel, through Gillespie, and ultimately diagonally through the entire Mountain Vista Plan. The trail was shown in an approximate location. Member Bernth moved for approval of the request for waiver from the contiguity requirements in accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Staff Report, File #39-94. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Bracke stated that he is confident that the intersections will not fail once the improvements are made. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the concern is still present on paper and funding is not even in place for some improvements. Mr. Bracke replied that the developers would be required to pay. Taxpayers may be asked to pay for the entire relocation of the Vine and Lemay intersection but intersection improvements will be a development -related expense. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the frontage road and whether or not it would actually occur. Mr. Bracke replied that the idea is a good one and should be decided soon. Mr. Stringer stated that the Gillespie developers have indicated that they will provide the right-of-way to move and straighten County Road 11 to the east. This would then allow room for a frontage road or driveway situation for the houses along the road. Member Torgerson asked about the Vine and Lemay intersection and whether it could be made to work if voters did not approve a tax to move it. Mr. Bracke replied that it could not be done without taking out houses. Mr. Klop stated that there are interim improvements that can be made, without moving houses and without taxpayer dollars, that will accommodate all approved developments as well as the Lind plan. If future developments come in, problems may arise. Member Craig asked about construction vehicles and whether or not a designated route would be defined. Mr. Stringer replied that a deal was not made with the Richard's Lake development in terms of a defined route. Given citizen concerns, a new route may be defined with this project which may be County Road 9. Member Craig asked about County Road 11 improvements and whether or not they would just be on the east side of the road. Mr. Stringer replied that the City has planned to collect money for the interim improvements: 36-foot wide road with two travel lanes and two 6-foot bike lanes. Ultimately, full improvements will be constructed. The interim improvements will not have sidewalks but the ultimate improvement will. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 11 Member Craig asked why we were not requiring them to pave that off -site mile when they would be adding traffic to that road. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, stated that we are only looking at the Overall Development Plan and a more detailed study will be needed for the Project Development Plan. Member Craig asked if funding was present for the Vine and Lemay improvements. Mr. Bracke replied that we will have the funding — it is development related. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant would like to give a rebuttal to the citizen comment. Planner Grubb stated that as County Road 11 transitions from a County Road to a City minor arterial, bike lanes and sidewalks will be required. Jeremy Klop, LSA Associates, gave a rebuttal for the applicant regarding the traffic study completed by the company. He stated that the applicant has been in contact with the Gillespie developers regarding the frontage road issue. This will affect the alignment of the County Road 52 and 11 intersection and the ultimate improvements at that intersection once development occurs. Chairman Gavaldon asked if adequate public facilities and contiguity should be a review criteria at the ODP stage. Planner Grubb replied that staff views the ODP stage as making sure the proposed improvements will ultimately make the project in compliance with our level of service standards. The difficulty with applying the level of service standards at the ODP stage is that we don't know who is going to submit a PDP first. The level of service standards truly get applied at the PDP stage. He suggested looking at the 'big picture' at the ODP level because ODP approvals may not get developed for many years. At the ODP level, we need to be certain that the applicant is being responsible for their portion of the improvements. Chairman Gavaldon again asked about the failing intersections in the traffic impact study. Mr. Bracke replied that this traffic study is somewhat different than other studies. The intersections are now County intersections and the appropriate solutions have not been applied in the traffic study. The appropriate solutions will be decided at the PDP level. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 10 Planner Grubb replied that the right-of-way is being obtained to make the improvements. The first phase of the improvements is to widen County Road 11 to include bike lanes. Ultimately, the goal is to provide the frontage road and shift County Road 11 to the east. The City and the neighbors have the common goal to provide the frontage road. The process has not moved beyond that. Member Craig asked about the Gillespie property and what its plans would show in terms of County Road 11 and the frontage road. Planner Grubb replied that without having a final design plan on that section, it cannot be stated for certain that the frontage road is possible. Member Craig asked if the PDP for Gillespie Farm had been submitted. Planner Grubb replied that it had not. Member Craig asked about the failing levels for the short-term and what improvements will be made so the levels become acceptable. Eric Bracke, Streets Department, replied that the developer was required to examine all potential developments, both present and future when completing the traffic study. Vine and Lemay is the key intersection in this area. Interim improvements can be made to this intersection to maintain acceptable levels of service. He added that the build -out in the area probably would not be complete for about 10 years but the study was done in the short term assuming full build -out in order to provide a conservative analysis. He stated that the funds for the intersection improvements would come from Street Oversizing fees. Member Craig stated that Oversizing fees go into one big pot and are doled out from crisis to crisis. She asked if these improvements would have to wait until they got to a 'crisis' point before being funded and sit as an 'F' in the meantime. Mr. Bracke replied that traffic operations is allocated a certain portion of the Oversizing funds every year to do signalization projects. Member Craig stated her concern about this project as well as the Gillespie project: as long as the developer paves one way to and from the development, the other ways do not have to be paved. She expressed concern over a mile -long stretch that was not required to be paved. Planner Grubb and Mr. Bracke replied that the section was not required to be paved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 9 Another connection with one of the streets from the Richard's Lake development is similar. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, gave the applicant's presentation for Centex Homes. He discussed the history and infrastructure of the site and surrounding area. He discussed the transportation plan and street infrastructure noting that surrounding developments are willing and ready to contribute to the road improvement plan. He discussed the request for alternative compliance to reduce the number of connections along the ditch property. The connectivity to the Northeast requires six connections based on 660 feet of spacing. The plan shows two collectors, a local street and two pedestrian connections. The other request for alternative compliance from the spacing requirement will allow the streets to connect with existing streets in adjacent developments. The final issue is a request for a waiver of contiguity. The waiver could be granted based on the completion of a regional trail linkage. Citizen Input Joseph Bleicher, 2509 North County Road 11, spoke on behalf of many of the neighbors along County Road 11 to the southwest of the project. He spoke about traffic impacts along NCR 11 noting specifically an agreement made in 1997 between the neighborhood and the Richards Lake PUD developer. This agreement would provide a bermed frontage road along NCR 11 between Country Club Road and Richards Lake Road. Susie Danford, 2301 North County Road 11, stated that there is little room to walk along the road and that traffic speeds are very high. Mike Solenberger, 3937 Harborwalk Lane, spoke on behalf of the Gillespie ODP project to the south of the Lind Property. He stated the importance of the developers to work together and stated their support of the proposed ODP. Joe Bunton, 2601 North County Road 11, spoke about the heavy traffic along the road. He added that the Master Street Plan does not accurately depict the road. In going north on County Road 11 just prior to Richard's Lake Road, County Road 11 takes a pronounced jog to the left. If that were straightened out, that would alleviate the neighbors' concerns by allowing room for the bermed frontage road. Member Craig asked about the transportation improvements and the timeframe for those improvements as well as why the neighbors were having to deal with so much construction traffic. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 8 fixtures are to be removed by Poudre School District, whether voluntarily or by court order or for any reason, then the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment shall be removed as well." Member Bernth seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion because the process was followed. He stated that he empathized with the neighbors' concerns. Member Craig asked staff to look at the flush -mounting, stealth designs for the Fall Land Use Code revisions. She stated concern about the amount of space being taken up by the ground equipment. She asked Ms. Williams to check with the neighbors in attendance to confirm their presence on the mailing list. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Lind Property — Overall Development Plan Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for a 172.61-acre mixed -use residential development. The site is located north of County Road 52 and east of County Road 11. The site is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. He spoke about the Master Street Plan that calls for two north -south collectors. The plan provides those although not in the exact location illustrated on the Master Street Plan. He discussed surrounding development and alternate compliance issues. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the contiguity requirement, which states that a development needs to be contiguous to existing urban development. None of the properties, which are adjacent to this site and could create contiguity, are yet developed. Other issues include the lack of required connections along the Northeast part of the property. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian -only crossing (as opposed to a full bike/vehicle/pedestrian crossing) that would link to the park. Another issue is the alignment of the connections along the west side of the property. One connection aligns with Serramonte Drive and does not meet the spacing requirement but staff requested that it be located this way. Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bemth, Carpenter, Gavaldon, Members Meyer and Colton were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Virata, Vosburg, Bracke, Schlueter, Wray, Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (CONTINUED), May 3 and May 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ01-04 — Easement Dedication 3. #11-971 Fort Collins High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 4. #58-98B Poudre High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP (Pulled for Discussion by Staff) 5. #11-97H Rocky Mountain High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 6. #52-82F Poudre School District — South Bus Terminal Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review 7. #13-99A Fossil Creek Wetlands 2"d — Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 8. #39-94 Lind Property — Overall Development Plan Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1 (Less the November 16, 2000 Minutes), 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. 1 The motion was approved 5-0.