City Council Minutes 1999 09 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Light explained that the 1041 regulations, as they were amended last fall, had two components. They did designate as a matter of statewide concern what is called the 'site selection of arterial highways or other major roads'. He cited the proposed siting of the Northwest Parkway as an example. He explained that the Ordinance also required a permit for development around arterial highway interchanges, which is a separate category than the siting of a highway. He stated that one of the focuses of the development permit was to give the City the ability to regulate facilities near interchanges that the City might not have the authority to otherwise regulate. He cited a potential RTD facility around an existing interchange as an example. He stated that, to the extent that the City might not have land use authority over such a project because it is from another governmental entity, the 1041 permit would provide the City with the basis to do so. He explained that the 1041 permit also categorically, requires a permit for development around existing and proposed interchanges. That raises the questions that Council discussed earlier, such as whether this particular interchange at Hwy 42 & 96th Street falls within those criteria. Keany asked Light how the City not requiring a 1041 permit for this development could restrict the alignment of the road in the future. Light replied that the 1041 permit process and the City's acquisition for right-of-way for the road are separate issues. The right-of-way would be acquired, potentially, to the extent there is a subdivision for which a dedication is necessary, through that subdivision process. He explained that right-of-way might be acquired by condemnation, by agreement, or by a number of other methods. He stated that the 1041 permit in and of itself in regulating development around these areas is focused more on the land uses on the site, rather than the right-of-way for the arterial highway. Keany questioned whether not requiring a 1041 permit for this project would or would not hamper development of the road in the future. Light replied that if the direction from Council is that the intersection at Hwy 42 & 96th Street is not currently 'proposed', Staff will take that direction and advise the applicant accordingly that if it does not appear that this is a 'proposed' intersection, a 1041 permit is not required. He expressed concern that at some point the City will need to specifically state when that intersection becomes 'proposed' in order to maintain authority to regulate the types of land uses, such as an RTD facility, that the City would want access to. He explained that one of the purposes of the 1041 process was to allow the City to take a look at development within a one mile radius of a large intersection with more transportation-oriented criteria. Keany agreed that the City may use the 1041 process as a tool in the future, especially as the properties along Hwy 42 and CTC come forward to be developed. He agreed that the City needs to clarify the language and also identify when the intersection becomes a sketch and part of an Intergovernmental Agreement and an actual, proposed intersection. He questioned whether the intersection has been designated as an 'interchange' at this point. 26