Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESChairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Meyer and Torgerson. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Grubb, Olt, McCallum, Moore, Jakson, Stringer, Jones, Wilder and Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18, November 16 and December 7, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. 93-90H Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final Discussion Agenda: 3. #4-01 Ridgewood Hills Rezoning 4. #1-01 Poudre Development Rezoning 5. #40-98 Cathy Fromme 1g` Natural Area Annexation & Zoning 6. #40-98A Cathy Fromme 2"d Natural Area Annexation & Zoning 7. #43-98 Coyote Ridge 1st Annexation & Zoning 8. #43-98A Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation & Zoning 9. #43-9813 Coyote Ridge 3`d Annexation & Zoning 10. #43-98C Coyote Ridge 4`h Annexation & Zoning 11. #43-98D Coyote Ridge 5`h Annexation & Zoning 12. #43-98E Coyote Ridge 6th Annexation & Zoning 13. Referred Minor Amendment to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center. Member Craig pulled item 2, Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing for discussion. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Item 1, May 181h only. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 2 Project: Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final, #3-90 H Project Description: Request for 41 single-family lots on 11.47 acres. The property is in the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and is located east of Seneca Street, north of Wakerobin Lane, and south of the future Troutman Parkway extension. Recommendation: Approval with Standard Engineering Condition Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig asked Planner Olt to discuss the Board's concerns that were raised at worksession about the possibility of connections from the cul-de-sacs onto Seneca. She asked about the Transportation Department's recommendations. Planner Olt replied that he handed out some items to the Board tonight that reflect Eric Bracke's position. The letter from Eric to the Board is dated 1991 and is 10 years old. At that time there was also a letter from the representative for the developer regarding meetings with the School District and the principles of Webber Junior High and Johnson Elementary School. In terms of crossings across Seneca Street, which separates both of the schools, they felt it was important to direct the pedestrian traffic to the north and the south along Westbrooke Drive; which is internal to the development and take them to future Troutman Parkway to the north and Regency Drive to the south, where they would intersect with Seneca Street. They did not want to encourage pedestrian traffic and the students coming from the neighborhood mid -block between Troutman and Regency Drive and immediately crossing at an unprotected area. That position was stated 10 years ago, and he understands that Transportation Planning has been interested in a pedestrian connection all along. The comment sheets from Transportation Planning, Kathleen Reavis, indicates that they still would like to see pedestrian connections, but they understand the School District and Traffic Operations position regarding safety. Member Craig referred to the revision comment sheets that were done more recently, December 23, 1999 and May 31, 2000. Kathleen Reavis mentioned that the comments were given verbally at the review meeting. She asked if there was a traffic engineer at the review meeting and if so what was the conversation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 3 Planner Olt did not recall, because the meetings were some time ago, whether there was a traffic engineer or traffic operations representative, he could not speak to that. The last two rounds of review from Transportation Planning do not reflect still wanting those pedestrian connections and movement across Seneca. That happened in October 2000 and February of 2001. Member Craig asked Mark Jackson of the Transportation Department, representing Kathleen Reavis, to give a summary of how this all fit together and what may have happened at those two meetings that they don't have any notes on. Mr. Jackson responded that Planner Olt was accurate in his descriptions. As far as his understanding of those conversations and the debate that took place between Traffic Operations, Current Planning and Transportation Planning, was that the decision was to agree to disagree on the philosophy of this. Ms. Reavis felt it was important to make those connections, but there were agreements or conversations with the school officials that had been done before and had already been in place. In addition, there were the traffic engineers and school officials feelings, which was to not encourage crossings across a collector level roadway and that they would rather have the pedestrians moved to controlled areas. Member Craig asked what the distance was between Troutman and Regency, because those are being determined to be the appropriate crossings. Planner Olt did not have a scale, but assumed that it was about 1,000 to 1,200 feet, approximately 2 blocks or maybe a little longer. Member Craig felt that if the other connections were not put in, they would be discouraging pedestrians coming across and using that area. She wished that there were someone here tonight to tell her that it would be too dangerous. The only information she has on the danger side is 10 years old. She felt that with enhanced crosswalks, maybe it would not be so dangerous now. Jeff Couch, Ballofet & Tranco stated that he had been working on this project for approximately 11 years now. The Overall Development Plan was originally modified and approved in late 1990. He reported that they ran into three barriers when it came to pedestrian connectivity to Seneca. The first and the most significant was the School District, and at one time there were even road connections planned out to Seneca. Because of the heavy bus and pedestrian traffic in that area, they felt they wanted "no" connections. They were very firm about it. As a result of that, they eliminated not only pedestrian connections, but vehicular connections as well. Through the Overall Development Plan, they also had some lots fronting along Seneca, and the reason for that was to break up the streetscape along Seneca Street. They ran into another hurdle Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 4 there because there is no sewer in Seneca and they would have to run sewer along the backs of the lots that were facing Seneca. The city utilities were adamantly opposed to that as well, so they took the lots off of Seneca and created the no pedestrian connections through there. At that time, they also had the support of Traffic Operations for no pedestrian connections. The concern was that they have established crosswalks at Regency and at Troutman and that was enough to provide adequate pedestrian circulation into that area. They used the feedback from those three entities to do the final layout that they have and make the decisions that they did. PUBLIC INPUT. None. Member Colton asked Planner Olt to point out on the map where the crossings at Regency and Troutman were. Planner Olt complied. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there was any attempt to refresh the memos from the School District from 1991. He felt that it was old information and that things have changed over time. He was sure that the District has changed their bus routes. He wondered why we were using old data. Planner Olt responded that no the information had not been refreshed. He was not clear on the relationship of bus routes to the crossings was. We are dealing with a significant collector street from Harmony Road up to Horsetooth Road that is a mile long. It will be a pretty dramatic collector street. He did not feel any circumstances have changed. The schools were there at that time. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the schools opinion was only advisory. Do they have a bearing on what the Board does. Planner Olt replied that they are advisory, he did not think that they have the authority to impose something like that on the city. Chairperson Gavaldon felt things have changed since those memos were written and wondered why the Board did not have refreshed information or the direct parties in here to help them understand. Planner Olt replied that he could not speak to that, staff did not feel the need to because circumstances in our minds have not changed since preliminary. This project was submitted as a PUD back in 1996 and has been lingering on due to necessary street improvements to either Seneca Street to the north to Horsetooth or Troutman Parkway to the east to Shields Street. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Couch added that the traffic study was updated last year and does echo what were the original concerns of the School District. Those were the amount of traffic, school buses, turning movements that are there and the driveway configurations on the school property all lead the School District to their conclusion. The updated traffic study just reinforced their decision even more. They have not gone back to the School Board and asked them to update their letter. Member Craig asked if the raised enhanced crosswalks would be put in at Regency and Troutman. Mr. Couch replied that they would. Member Craig asked about the memo handed out about the condition for approval for this project for the final utility plans and development agreement. She asked why they need a four -month extension. Planner Olt replied that he pulled that out of the air. Typically what we have done in the past is give a one or two month time frame to get the development agreement done. As the Board is well aware, we come to the Board with one extension after another. Staff felt that a four -month time frame seemed realistic for a project like this to get their development agreement done without having to bring it back to the Board in two months for a request for an extension. Member Craig stated that it bothered her because it specifically says in the Land Development Guidance System that developers should not even be bringing anything to the Planning and Zoning Board until they have final utility plans done. Planner Olt replied that we have been operating like this for 10 years and he questioned why the Board has been approving PUD's for years now without having this done. This is nothing new. Member Colton was struggling here because he really wants to encourage porosity. There are so many places in town where you have to walk a mile to go 100 yards. He thought that we were getting a little bit of that here. It is going to be more that just a route to school. It would be a route in the summer to get to a park, a route for parents to get somewhere and he did not like the idea of not doing the connections. He felt there could be other measures that could be done to encourage the children that would be going through there a short logical path. Member Carpenter was also struggling with this. She agreed with Member Colton in theory and principle for the need for walkability. Just knowing kids the way she does; it would worry her to have too many directions to go. She does understand that concern. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 6 While she thinks we need walkability, she felt this was a special case where you have two schools there and to allow a lot of connectors into the schools troubles her. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the variance to Section 29-526. F(5)(b)[1]b, pertaining to the Final Plan being in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Plan, of the LDGS. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Westbrooke PUD, 2"d Filing Final with the standard condition for final utility plans and development agreement. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig asked for a friendly amendment to change the condition date to July 2001. The Board accepted the friendly amendment. Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he does believe in walkable neighborhoods and what ever went on back when this was put together came up short of walkable. He was concerned about the age of the documents and he felt that they should have been refreshed and the Board should have had a traffic report. Member Colton would not be supporting the motion. He felt that walkability is more of an emphasis now that ever. He also felt they should have had updated information. Member Craig agreed with Member Colton and the LDGS Criteria she was looking at was A2.6, Pedestrian Circulation. What does bother her is that Kathleen Reavis, who is our Transportation Planner continued to feel strongly about this and she did not feel like she would put children's safety in jeopardy. She looked at the circumstances and still felt that it was appropriate to ask for the connections. She would not be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative.