Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND PUD - PRELIMINARY - 34-88B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 15 INTERSTATE LAND PUD - PRELIMINARY - #34-88B Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the condition that the layout of the development is subject to change with the Final PUD due to the need for a continuous right -turn lane along the south/east side of the 1-25 Frontage Road (adjacent to Lots 1, 6, 9, 10,12 and 13), possible deletion of the access point straddling the lot line between Lots 9 and 10 due to a potential left turn conflict with the access into Lot 7, and a determination by the Colorado Department of Transportation about whether the cross-section of the frontage road should be designed and constructed to urban or rural street standards, potentially requiring additional street right-of-way. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, gave a brief presentation covering the question of why an ODP is not desirable at this time, general traffic questions and specifics of the preliminary plan. He stated parcels A and B are physically separated by Boxelder Creek floodplain and the 1-25 frontage road. In 1987, the property owner facilitated agreements between CDOT, the City of Fort Collins and affected property owners regarding doing a frontage road interchange situation with workable spacing between intersections rather than the traditional diamond interchange. Parcel B is in the Prospect Gateway style area in The Prospect Road Streetscape Program while Parcel A is in the interchange style area. There is a fair amount of detail in the interchange area as far as land use and architectural requirements that affects Parcel B. There were clear expectations for land use, access and circulation for Parcel A. This is not the case for Parcel B. There is no code requirement to include both parcels on the same ODP and it appears to be to everyone's advantage to address Parcel B at a later date. Structure plans are in the works and may influence Parcel B. Parcel B should be considered separately. Parcel A can be planned without precluding any land use, access or circulation options for Parcel B. The additional traffic that is generated by the land uses within this project can be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems. The impacts of this additional traffic will meet city traffic policies, and pedestrian and bicycle needs will be addressed and integrated into the overall city pedestrian/bicycle system. Bike lanes are provided on both Prospect and the frontage road. There are detached public sidewalks that are included on the proposed streets. The amount of pedestrian/bicycle traffic will be minimal. The traffic generated by this project is primarily oriented toward 1-25. This PUD will generate over $300,000 in street oversizing fees. The property owner has been committed to the intent of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program, participated in it and has provided a good deal of the mapping and background information that the city used for this program. The total change in site layout regarding the frontage road with the right turn lane affects the width of the tree lawn, whether its 8 or 20 feet, between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 16 There is no substantial change in layout and design. Boxelder Creek does not affect the floodplain but does affect the proximity. The developer has been working with Staff on this by possibly leaving Boxelder Creek in its natural state with some bank stabilization. The first building planned for this site is for a new facility for an existing business that is currently located outside the city limits. This use gets a great deal of traffic. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer, stated that all of the intersections related to this development operate acceptably with or without the Timberline extension. Turning lanes and signalization are needed at the intersection of Prospect and Summitview. With initial phases of this development, signals will be warranted at the northbound ramps of 1-25 and Prospect and at the frontage road intersection. In addition, there are a number of auxiliary lanes that are being required from a state highway point of view and an operational point of view. In the long range future, southbound ramps and the Prospect intersection will be signalized. The long range forecast for Prospect Road with this development is an increase of 1.6-1.7 times the existing traffic. These volumes are in line with the traffic forecast contained in the Transportation Planning Process that has been produced. Three components of traffic on Prospect are: 1) the existing traffic; 2) the site generated traffic, which comprises 10-15% of the total traffic, and; 3) traffic attributable to other developments or the general increase of traffic growth in the area. Lucia Liley, attorney for the developer, stated that she discussed the issue of the ODP versus the preliminary with Deputy City Attorney Eckman. She stated that the burden is really on the applicant to demonstrate that these requirements have been met. She prepared an affidavit that has been distributed to the Board prior to this meeting. She stated there are three provisions in the LDGS which deal with this: 1) that the applicant desires to phase the preliminary plan; 2) that an ODP is required, in that, Section F, Subsection 3, which states that an ODP shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed over time in two or more separate preliminary plan submittals, and; 3) that Section I, Project Phasing, states essentially the same thing. This affidavit that states and affirms the owner's intent that this property will not be developed in a separate preliminary but will be embodied in just the preliminary here tonight and that no p!an has been submitted for the property to the north and west of this site. CITIZEN INPUT Sally Craig, Summitview resident, stated her concerns are: 1) traffic on Prospect Road; 2) lack of an approved overall development plan; 3) the Prospect Road Streetscape Plan and the setting of a precedence with this project in terms of having a chance for a great first impression of the community, and; 4) the defense used that the highest percentage of business with this project will be from 1-25. She urged the Board to slow down with this project until the concerns she has stated have been properly addressed. The Timberline extension needs to be either operating or alternative traffic solutions implemented. The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 17 traffic problems on the two-lane Prospect Road, as well as the future problems of the frontage road, need to be researched with long term solutions and funding. An Overall Development Plan, an essential primary step in the process, should be presented, discussed and approved. An ODP would assure that a cohesive plan for the property would result. The fact that this property would set a precedence for the Prospect Corridor, as well as the Boxelder Creek corridor, should be seriously taken into consideration. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Mr. Ward stated that the plan for this preliminary PUD that was shown at the neighborhood meeting has not changed. He added that there was no development plan in 1988 that was recorded. There was a Master Plan that was submitted to the city that was a basis of the zoning that was never acted upon by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Delich stated that the area on Prospect Road around the Orthopaedic Center and Seven Lakes is oriented toward the west. The total trip generation in the area of Summitview is about 12,000. A number of signals are warranted in the area. One signal is scheduled for installation at Summitview and Prospect in 1996. The other three, at the frontage road, southbound ramps and northbound ramps of 1-25, will be warranted and will be paid for with the oversizing fee that will be generated. Member Colton asked why there are two traffic analyses. Mr. Olt replied because the traffic study included in the Staff Report was the only one available and was dated August 1995. There was another traffic study completed in November 1995. Therefore, the Board was given both reports. Sheri Wamhoff, City Engineering, stated that between the two traffic studies, the layout of the site somewhat changed. The first report had only one hotel and now there is two different hotels and a convenience center. Member Colton asked what is the overall timing of this development and why isn't there an ODP if it is in phases. Mr. Olt stated that the preliminary is a one phase preliminary for the entire 26 acres. The final for the two lots to the north will come in as a separate phase but the way the LDGS describes it as not requiring an ODP. Mr. Ward stated that the timing is a fairly extended time frame from 5-10 years. Because of the specific requirements of CDOT for access phasing, the need to coordinate storm drainage, utilities, and pedestrian systems, it made sense to do one preliminary and establish the design at the level of one at a time. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 18 Chairman Walker asked about the issue of stabilization of the bank along Boxelder Creek and what is the relative situation to Lots 7 and 8. Glen Schlueter, City Stormwater Utility, stated that the primary area of concern is that there is some bank erosion in this area. The floodplain is mostly to the west side. When I- 25 was built, the box that was placed under 1-25 was undersized. The city had an analysis done using a 3,800 csf flow even though the current maximum is 1,900 csf. This analysis showed that the velocities are low enough on that side that it can be armored to stabilize the bank. The floodplain administrator researched the area and noticed that it had not migrated that much which and was not a concern. Mr. Ward stated that the developer has had meetings with the City Natural Resources staff. It will be a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 slope with natural vegetation. Rob Wilkinson, City Natural Resources Department, stated that they are concerned about the proximity of the development to the stream. The stream corridor is part of the natural area corridor system within the city which also includes the Poudre River, Spring Creek and Fossil Creek. What this situation is, is that the buffer zones on both sides of the existing stream channel were to be protected, there would not be much site left to develop. The Natural Resources department is concerned about armoring the channel and how the landscaping transition will occur even at best, what is being proposed falls short of what they would like to see. On the other hand, given the configuration of the floodplain and the fact that there will be a large open space area encompassing the floodplain to the west of the existing channel, the city was put in a position of accepting a less than desirable situation in this case. The Natural Resources Department did not make a very strong comment at the preliminary phase about the proximity, because on the preliminary plan it appears there is a broader area between the channel and the edge of the developed portion of the property. Chairman Walker asked if there is a parking lot area between the two buildings. Mr. Wilkinson replied that there is a parking lot and an access area for building servicing that will go along the west side of the building. Mr. Ward stated that the drainage from the parking lot will generally go down to a water quality pond and then be released at a controlled rate into the creek. Since the final was originally submitted, the building and the service area has been moved further away from the creek. When the applicant receives the detailed survey information for the final, they will adjust the building and the service area location. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 19 Member Colton asked if Prospect Road could safely handle the existing level of traffic and bike usage. Mr. Bracke replied that in terms of the vehicular traffic, the safety issues occur at the intersections, primarily at Summitview and Prospect. There are some delays and poor choices on the behalf of drivers on how to handle that intersection. The city has been working with Larimer County and the county has given the city $30,000 for the pavement work and it will be signalized in the very near future regardless of this development. That will add the additional lanes and signalization as needed. In terms of the current volume, there is very little roadside friction through most of it. It does handle it safely although somewhat congested. Member Colton asked what would occur if there was a 50% increase in the traffic, and if the road is not improved, was there funding in place to do any improvements for the intersection of Summitview and Prospect. Mr. Bracke replied that Prospect will need additional laneage with a 50% increase in traffic. He believed there is no capital improvement project that is scheduled to either rehab that roadway or expand it. A lot of the roadway is in the county. Member Colton asked where street oversizing fees go. Ms. Wamhoff replied that these fees go into a overall fund which is then utilized when improvements are done to roads as they need funding. Mike Herzig, City Engineering, stated that the oversizing funds are limited to certain types of improvements. The funds are used to reimburse the developer for building those certain improvements not to general improvements of Prospect Road for example. Member Davidson commented that if the city or the county do not make improvements to Prospect Road, the infrastructure is not there to support this increased traffic with this development. He commented that his main concerns are with the traffic and the condition of the roads. He believes that a signal will not totally resolve the problem, with no left turn lane. He also had concerns that there is no paved shoulder along Prospect Road and without the paved shoulders, the wetlands would be impacted with salt and oil from the cars. He noted a potential danger in coming off of 1-25 and going west onto Prospect Road because the road rises coming from the west onto the bridge and is too much of a grade, and oncoming traffic cannot be seen. Another safety issue is the backed up traffic on 1-25 when exiting onto Prospect Road. Mr. Bracke stated that one reason a signal is warranted on the northbound ramp is to prevent that spill back. One of the reasons why the Harmony Road interchange is being Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 20 reconstructed next year is because it does need the additional capacity and those ramps need to be moved out and made to a four -lane span. This will not happen in the near future on the Prospect/1-25 interchange. Member Davidson asked about the accesses to the service center. Ms. Wamhoff replied that there is a signed agreement between the property owner and the State that there would be a right -in right -out access. Mr. Ward stated that the distance between the service center and the frontage road is about 400 feet. He added that this was part of a compromise to keep this from being full movement and to get the frontage road at a reasonable space to get signal spacing between the ramps and the frontage road. Member Davidson asked about the bicycle paths along Boxelder Creek. Mr. Ward stated that there are several considerations regarding the bike paths. This is currently being worked out. Member Strom asked what kind of turn lanes will be at Summitview and Prospect. Mr. Bracke replied that this will be protected phases. For eastbound traffic there will be a left turn lane and a through lane. For the southbound traffic there will be a left and a right turn lane but no left turn arrows because it is not warranted. Member Bell asked if the John's Harley-Davidson final will be seen at a different time and is it a part of this preliminary plan. Mr. Olt replied that the plans given to the Board tonight are plans of the creek drainage way to the improvements not a final plan. The John's Harley-Davidson project is currently in development review and will be before the Board in March or April as a final for the two lots north of the frontage road. Member Bell asked, in looking at the elevations, if the density and layout of this project is being vested. Mr. Olt replied that these are preliminary elevations and are subject to some modifications between preliminary and final. There are negotiations on John's Harley-Davidson from what is presented tonight on the preliminary level to what will be presented at final. Mr. Ward interjected that there is a note on the elevation specifically to address this concern that variations or alternatives could be considered at final. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 21 Member Colton asked if this is approved, would the Board be approving layout, density and uses. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that they would be approving uses, layout and density and the basic land use. Member Colton asked if these uses could be changed if there was a big trip generator. Mr. Delich replied that as land uses change, trip generation will also change. For example, fast food restaurants are typically between 2000-2500 s.f. in building size which will generate approximately 2000 trips. Member Davidson asked how much of Prospect Road is in the city limits. Mr. Ward stated that it appears it is in the city limits up to the frontage road. Member Davidson asked why the area was not annexed with the site. He stated that the services are not adequate leading out to this site. He believed that there was not sufficient information because there is no time line from the county as to when this road will be taken care of or whether the city will annex this property. He had concerns with the traffic and the road conditions not with the site. Chairman Walker commented that the main concern from the Board is the road infrastructure and the ability to handle it. Member Davidson commented that before he would approve this site, he would like to see the road infrastructure up to the site and dealt with along with the drainage. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the traffic issues are open season again at the time of final. However, the traffic issues would not be foreclosed at time of final because of the vote this evening. Mr. Ward suggested that the Board place a condition on this project that the road infrastructure will be addressed prior to a determined amount of square footage or trips that would be added through final projects. Member Strom moved to approve The Interstate Lands PUD Preliminary layout and density with the Staff condition and the condition that the final phases of this plan will be contingent upon a traffic analysis of the load that each final phase will add to the road system and to determine if the road system is adequate to handle the load. Member Colton seconded the motion. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 22 Chairman Walker commented that the cumulative impact as this site develops will be evaluated and a realistic look at if the road will handle the load. Member Strom commented that this gives the Board the opportunity, as this site develops over the years, for receiving updated information. Assuming that the Board is satisfied that John's Harley-Davidson will not exasperate the problem to the point that it is unacceptable, then the next project that comes along the Board would have the opportunity to count the traffic. There would also be the opportunity to evaluate the effect of traffic signals and geometric improvements that are planned by the city in the near future. Member Colton commented that he had concerns with approving projects where there are no real adequate facilities. This needs to be in the City Plan. Member Davidson asked how much control does the city have over the section of Prospect Road unless it is annexed into the city. Director Blanchard replied that unless it is annexed, the city has no control. However, within the urban growth area there are requirements that they can comply with. The City Planning Department reviews county referrals and the consistent comment is that road improvements have to occur at urban standards. Member Davidson commented that there would not be any development in the general area between the office parks and this new development. He did not see anything being generated or any incentive to improve this situation. Member Colton commented that other than Parcel B, there will be nothing built west of I- 25. Mr. Herzig stated that there are open space problems as with other parts of the city. He commented that the city does not necessarily have no control. The majority of Prospect Road is in the city. There are portions in the county that will make things difficult and there would have to be a cooperative agreement between the city and the county to accomplish something. As the problem increases, it becomes more and more important to do something. The city is always considering priorities on problems in the city. He does not believe that it would go neglected. Chairman Walker commented that one of the transportation issues of the proposed City Plan is to create linages not only within the city but to the regional neighbors. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 23 Mr, Olt stated that the city owns the riverbend north of Prospect Road and east of the river. East of the wren pit and south of Prospect Road there was a significant piece of land that CSU acquired from Flatiron companies. However, a family member of Flatiron has disputed this and is potentially developable. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 a.m.