HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/06/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson
Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Phone:(H) 484-2034
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Meyer, Craig, Carpenter, Gavaldon and Torgerson
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Schlueter, Stringer, Jackson,
Baker, Waido and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and
Discussion Agendas:
1.
Minutes of the October 17w, December 16, 2002 (continued)
and the January 16, 2003 (continued) Planning and Zoning
Board Hearings.
Discussion
Agenda:
2.
Wingshadow Large Group Care Facility, Private High School,
Child Care and Administrative Office — Project Development
Plan.
3. #3-03
Recommendation to City Council for the City Plan Update and
the Transportation Master Plan Update Characteristics for
Future Size and Character of Fort Collins.
4.
Recommendation to City Council for an Amendment to the
Natural Areas Policy.
5. #11-03
East Mulberry Corridor Plan Rezone.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the October 17, 2002 Planning
and Zoning Board Minutes on the consent agenda.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council for an
Amendment to the Natural Areas Policy
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for an
amendment to the Natural Areas Policy due to
the voters in November approving an existing
'/, cent sales tax for 25 years, which has
broadened the City's land conservation
abilities. An amendment to Section 5.0, which
provides authorizing language establishing the
policy basis for land conservation by the City is
necessary.
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Chairperson Torgerson thought that this item had been discussed at worksession
and there was no concerns but wanted to ask if there was any public discussion.
Public Input
None.
Member Craig moved to forward the recommendation of approval to City
Council for the amendment to the Natural Areas Policy.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Wingshadow Large Group Care Facility,
Private High School, Child Care and
Administrative Office — Project Development
Plan, #44-02
Project Description: Request to convert the existing structure at
1225 Redwood Street for the purposes of a
large group care facility, private high school,
childcare and administrative offices. The
private high school would be for Frontier High
School. The large group care facility would be
for up to 15 residents. The residents would be
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 3
teenagers and young adults in need of
counseling and transitional housing.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval.
He stated that there would be very little change to the exterior of the building. He
stated that the Board had seen this project last summer as a request to rezone
the property to the CCN, Community Commercial North College Zoning District.
Bob Dehn, representing Wingshadow, the applicant on the project stated that the
facility is located at 1225 Redwood Street and they were back to answer
questions and concerns for the Project Development Plan. They are a non-profit
organization and their goal is helping the youth of Northern Colorado. This will
be a homeless shelter, Frontier High School and a child care facility. Today the
school is located at Drake and Lemay. They also have another facility where
they have pregnant teenage girls, four girls and four babies over in the
Summitview area. These two facilities have been running for years in residential
neighborhoods. They have had a very positive feedback from all residents.
They think tonight will help the residents of the area with questions they may
have.
Public Input
Bob Lamar, President of Redwood Association, which is across the street from
the proposed school stated that he has driven around town and seen the
students in the Toddy's parking lot smoking and doing whatever they do there.
They are concerned because Redwood is a dead end and they were concerned
about all the kids hanging out down at the end of Redwood smoking etc. Another
concern is that they have had a car in their parking lot that has been sitting there
for two months and it has not moved out of the one spot. Recently another car
was added and has not moved out of that spot for a month. They are concerned
about cars being left in the parking lot that do not run and they are concerned
with what the neighborhood is going to look like because everything around the
neighborhood is fields.
The police have been back at the dead end because there is a bike trail back
there and they always catch people doing drugs and whatever back there. His
neighbors are scared to even walk that bike path because there is always
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 4
something going on back there. They have called the police several times and
they have responded and took care of the situation. They take care of the lawn
that is on Redwood, it is the HOA's responsibility. They have had damage to
their fence, damage to the water sprinklers and they just don't want anything
going on from this school to add to the problems. They say that nothing is going
on and he has sat in the church parking lot and seen plenty of things going on.
Public Input Closed.
Chairperson Torgerson asked Planner Shepard to address Mr. Lamar's
concerns.
Planner Shepard reported that after the neighborhood meeting it was clear that it
was operational characteristics that were the primary concerns. In response to
that, the applicant has committed to meeting on a regular basis with the
neighborhood representatives, or anyone for that matter. The Department of
Neighborhood Resources has offered to facilitate the first meeting to set a
structure and a format, and to establish rules and expectations. Staff feels that
with the commitment by the applicant, and the fact that there would be an
organized standing meeting for any citizen to bring their complaints forward,
establishes a rapport and a communication where if someone does have a
complaint, they are not puzzled as to what to do with it.
Mr. Dehn rebutted that he wanted the neighborhood and the Board to know that
they are very open minded about helping people and helping kids. They are very
open about the neighborhoods and always have been. They want to keep an
open mind and sit down and address anything. He thought that all their goals
were to take care of the kids and that is their focus. They will work with their kids
because they have rules and structures that they will have to abide by. The city
has worked with them through several processes and they will make sure they do
what they say they are going to do.
Chairperson Torgerson asked about the vehicles in the parking lot that are not
running.
Steve Bolton of Wingshadow responded that people bring them vehicles to
donate to them. They are in the process of getting those removed and sold.
Being a non-profit, there is a process and you just can't get them towed away.
They have to be able to account for the donation and that is what they are in the
process of doing. The cars should be gone shortly.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 5
Chairperson Torgerson asked if that was a standard operating characteristic of
theirs.
Mr. Bolton replied no. It is very rare that they were donated two vehicles at one
time.
Member Gavaldon stated that the applicant should know that there are city laws
against unlicensed and non -working vehicles in parking lots.
Mr. Bolton replied they would take care of that right away.
Member Craig asked Mr. Bolton to talk about Frontier High School and what will
the campus rules be.
Mr. Bolton replied that the kids would not be wandering all over the neighborhood
at all different times. There will be a closed campus. Before school and after
school they will be coming and going, but other than that they will be there at the
school. The kids in the large group care facility will not be able to roam the
neighborhood at all. It will be a staff secure facility where they will have to stay
inside the building unless they go out with a staff member. It won't be something
where kids will be just wandering around the neighborhood. He cannot promise
that at lunchtime, kids will not leave the facility, because they are not held
hostage there. It is something where they can come and go, but at the same
time it is not an open campus where there are free periods. Everyday, all day
long, they have classes that the kids are supposed to be in.
Member Craig asked if there was any adult after school that sends the kids on
their way, or do they just open the door and they are still out there at 7:00 at
night.
Mr. Bolton responded that they do check to see that they are not out there at
7:00 or even 4:30 p.m. The kids did have permission by the owner of the
Toddy's Shopping Center to go over there, they even set up a place for them.
They had no control over the kids going over to the shopping center when they
had permission from the owner.
Member Craig asked if the kids were going into the residential areas and ruining
the green areas with cigarette butts, was there an avenue the residents have of
controlling that.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 6
Mr. Bolton replied that it would be difficult because right now you have kids going
over there and going down the trail and doing things and their kids are not even
there. He cannot control that area, but he will control the kids at their school.
Member Craig asked Mr. Schlueter to briefly tell her about the Water Board's
decision on the requested variance and what their concerns were. Also what
staff's recommendation was on the variance.
Mr. Schlueter responded that staffs recommendation was not a recommendatior
but a list of options for the Board to consider. They did not recommend anything
because they did not want to err on the side of bureaucracy. They wanted the
Board to have the free will to choose what the right thing to do was in this
situation. As far as the objections were for the 2 votes out of 11 that did not vote
in favor of the variance; that this is in the floodplain and that it did not meet the
elevation criteria, even though the floor is 6 inches above the floodplain
elevation. There would not be water in the building itself in a 100 year storm. It
was more an issue of getting the children out of there before the storm got there.
It could be as deep as 3 feet at the intersection of Conifer and Redwood, which
would prohibit getting completely away from it. Mr. Schlueter showed the Board
a map depicting the flow path. What the Board was worried about was how far it
was to dry land, which would mean getting through the intersection. It came
down to the realization that they could have plenty of warning when they put in
this warning system. They have a separate system that is redundant to our
system and is really a similar system. It was decided that they would need a
certificate of occupancy and meet all the requirements before they would let any
kids move in.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if this project complied with the Master Drainage
Plan.
Mr. Schlueter replied that would apply to new buildings, this is an existing
structure.
Member Bernth moved for approval of Wingshadow Large Group Care
Facility, Private School, Child Care Center and Office, PDP, #30-02 with the
following condition:
There Shall be no Certificate of Occupancy issued for Wingshadow,
at 1226 Redwood Drive until there has been satisfaction of Floodway
Variance Condition of Approval as granted by the City of Fort Collins
Water Board. This includes the installation of an early warning flood
detection system in the Dry Creek drainage basin sufficient to
provide approximately two hours advance notice for a safe and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 7
orderly evacuation of the building and grounds, and an evacuation
plan addressing transportation and temporary shelter.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Craig commented that she understands the neighborhood concerns with
compatibility. She believes this organization is coming in in good faith to work
with the neighborhood and at least work with their students to improve the area.
As far as the floodplain issue goes, she will vote for this but is very uncomfortable
with putting these kids in jeopardy, not just putting them in the floodplain, but
putting them in the floodway.
Member Gavaldon stated he would be supporting the motion. He appreciated
what Stormwater is trying to do because it is not just the school you have to
protect, but the citizens who bought homes in the area. He appreciated the
neighborhood coming forward with their concerns about objects being there
longer than they should be. He hoped that the neighborhood and the school
would work together.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the City
Plan Update and the Transportation Master
Plan Update Characteristics for Future Size
and Character of Fort Collins, #03-03
Project Description: Request to forward a recommendation to the
City Council regarding the characteristics to be
used in the updates to City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan describing the
future size and character of Fort Collins.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 8
Public Participation:
Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview stated that she was also on the City Plan Advisory
Committee and was not speaking on their behalf. She offered the observation about
the City Plan Committee and that it has been a vigorous process. There were lots of
meetings, activities and 20-page memos. She wanted to point out, not unlike other
committees; it has its life span. Starting in mid -fall with 22 people and with lack of
attendance, a committee member that never came after the first meeting resigned, in
addition to another committee member resigning. Many of the characteristics
brought before the board tonight is from a "majority," of sometimes 14 people and
sometimes 17 people. Compared to a board of 7, that may seem like good input,
but sometimes it was a limited discussion. Part of her point to the Planning and
Zoning Board would be to elevate that discussion.
Council went through the characteristics and gave direction twice. In one instance,
the committee got those comments in less than 24 hours later. Staff that can turn
around those comments, decipher them, and present them to the committee for their
comments impressed her. What the board has before them is staff input, Council
input and committee input. The committee input has not officially been approved.
They have until March 14th to come forth with any comments to refine their minutes.
She wanted the board to be aware that the characteristics they received are a
,'moving target." In addition, the public input has been paired against a "moving
target." The three public meetings that have been held, each were commenting on
characteristics different than the board has this evening. The process is one that
she hoped was ongoing. Unfortunately, there is not another public meeting prior to
the Council public meeting. It is unfortunate that there is not the opportunity to delve
into these further. That would be the crux of her comment. While the process
continues in great detail, she thought that it should be acknowledged that there are
characteristics that Council directed to be included. The committee was neutral.
The community as a whole was ambivalent. She thought that the board was getting
a package of very mixed messages.
An example is a public meeting that was held in January did not support a reduced
or retained Growth Area Management boundary. That public meeting did have
general support for enlarged growth area boundary beyond the current boundary
east of 1-25. There would be nothing that the board would have that would reflect
that in the information that the board has unless they have been purview to those
additional comments. Similarly, there was quite general support for a characteristic,
which described the Poudre River as the centerpiece for environment and the
opportunity for urban interface. The meetings beyond that removed that descriptor
of urban interface. There has been no additional public comment on what has, in
her mind, a more narrowly defined characteristic.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 9
Her comments would be to ask both the Planning and Zoning Board and City
Council to acknowledge the opportunity for continued community debate and to
encourage acknowledgement of the value of that debate and find other opportunities
for the community to look at these characteristics and what they truly mean. There
have been a number of meetings where comments sound "so good" and they really
are quite good and intentional about what we want our community to be. The truth is
she did not think there was a dissection of those to what they really mean. Two
examples are one, the urban interface at the river, does that in fact mean that there
will be no opportunities for urban development or urban interface, is that what that
means. We may get a collective head nod in the community that it would be just
fine, but on the other hand without the opportunity to discuss the matter, she thinks
that the Council, the community and the committee will proceed without really
saying, "yes, that is what we really want, we do not want urban development along
the river." Similarly, data was received that if you take the growth area management
population projections, limit the boundary, which many people would agree to, it
means that there are about 7,400 households that simply will not fit in our Growth
Area Management boundary. Maybe that is just fine, but she thinks that as a
community, we need to acknowledge the impact of 7,400 households going out to
other communities, out beyond the community planning areas.
Ms. Hopkins was asking the board to seek additional public comment and meetings
before this is voted on. She would also give the same comments to City Council.
There were no other public comments.
Chairman Torgerson suggested that the board focus on the characteristics that are
going to be included in City Councils resolution.
Member Craig asked when the CAC met last Wednesday, how was the committee's
recommendation accomplished. Did they vote, and what was the decision.
Planner Waido responded that the standard measuring block that has been used
through the process with the CAC is what is called the "super majority." Staff does
realize that some of the characteristics are quite contentious and we would never
conceive total consensus regarding them. Staff has felt that a cut off point of 80% of
the group reflected favorable to a particular characteristic that would go forward as a
recommendation or advice from the CAC.
Member Craig asked if there was a voting that went on. Planner Waido responded
that there was a vote.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 10
Member Craig asked if it came up during the CAC meeting, that the committee felt
like the process went too fast and there should be an extension and there should be
more public open houses.
Planner Waido replied that the process has been extended two times. There was
nothing in the committee's minutes that asked Council for another extension.
Regional Economy:
RE1 b:
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-3 (Members Colton, Bernth and Craig
voted in the negative) to recommend adoption of characteristic RE1 b with
edits to the wording.
Discussion: Members Meyer and Torgerson felt that if we are going to select certain
aspects that we want to promote and things we want to see Fort Collins attract or
become, the list is too short. There maybe other things out there and this appears to
be a very short list of things that we would like to see our economic base expand
into. It was felt that we need to have a very comprehensive long list or no list.
Member Gavaldon also felt that we were limiting ourselves, especially within the
current boundaries. Some Board Members felt that the wording should be left to say
"expand and diversify its employment options." That once a list is started, it looks
like other industries are not being welcomed. Member Torgerson suggested that the
section in bold be eliminated and that we "strengthen our economic base." Member
Meyer also felt that the wording "finding ways to strategically expand and diversify its
employment options" was also saying that there are certain things we do not want
here. That statement is too vague. Member Gavaldon also suggested that "within
its current boundaries be taken out." He felt that it was important not to limit
ourselves.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval for RE1 b, and to edit the
wording to read "Fort Collins strengthens its existing economic base while
finding ways to strategically expand and diversify its employment options,
including but not limited to, a center for retail trade, cultural offerings, medical
facilities, educational institutions and other viable activities." Member
Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Colton still liked "within its current boundaries" based on all the discussion
on various committees and with the Council. Without that, he would not be
supporting the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 11
RE2:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of this characteristic.
RE3:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the characteristic as
stated in Council's Resolution as it has been reworded.
RE4:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the characteristic as
stated in Council's Resolution as it has been reworded.
Open Space and Community Separators:
OS1:
Discussion: The board agreed with the wording addition of "and/or protection".
Member Craig also questioned the proposed wording addition of "in a safe and
properly maintained manner". She questioned how that fit in with the community
separators. How do we do community separators in a safe and properly maintained
manner? She felt that it did not fit the whole characteristic and wondered why it was
added. A community separator does not necessarily mean open land, it means that
it will be low density, clustered, etc.
Member Craig moved to accept Council's characteristic that will be put into
the resolution, including the addition of the wording "and/or protection" and
remove "in a safe and properly maintained manner".
Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1 with
Member Gavaldon voting in the negative.
OS2:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic.
OS3:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic as
stated in Council's Resolution.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 12
OS5:
Discussion: Member Carpenter had a problem with just leaving the wording as
"environmental stewardship". She understands the fears that arise when you add
"urban development". However, to take public use and ecology to her, the river is a
place is where we can show what we can do with wild areas. We need an area
where people can use and enhance their appreciation of the environment. She
suggested a compromise to allow some urban interface. Member Craig stated that
there is a section in City Plan that addresses Member Carpenters concerns. Staff
stated that the focus is on remembering that the river is a natural environmental
system and whenever we are dealing with it, keep that foremost in our mind, but we
are going to need to be flexible depending upon where we are within the river
corridor. Staff also stated that each individual principle and policy in City Plan will be
reviewed and ask if each would still be in line with this characteristic. If so, we will
keep it, if not we will make adjustments where it will be necessary. Member Meyer
felt that once you just put in there "environmental stewardship" and leave out public
use and other things, she feel that down the road the public use and other things will
be gone because she felt that "environmental stewardship" means that it will be
protected at all odds. Member Gavaldon felt we should be able to enjoy the river,
not just look at it. Member Carpenter felt that all that would be looked at is the
environmental stewardship and she did feel that was number one, however, that
should not be the only consideration and taking out the proposed wording is leaving
it as the only consideration.
Member Carpenter moved to recommend adoption of the characteristic and
leave in the wording "managing the interface of urban development, public
use, and ecology". Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the
negative.
Transportation:
TR1:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of this characteristic.
TR2:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of this characteristic.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 13
TR3
Discussion
Member Craig was bothered by the fact that staff talks about the fact that they don't
see the building of any new interchanges and that this characteristic does not even
talk about in the Fort Collins area, we could be talking about to Denver and back,
and yet this is being supported. She asked for staff clarification.
Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning responded that it was implicit in the
document that it was Fort Collins that is being talked about. As far as what the intent
is and why staff supports this is because it really states our ongoing commitment to
where we will facilitate the discussions between the governmental entities that own
the interchanges and try and make sure that when we have development pressures
or other pressures that come into the proximity to that interchange that we act as a
liaison to make sure they are on the same page and doing what is best for the safety
and mobility needs for the long range vision of that interchange area. It was not
meant to imply that we have a financial interest, but what we are interested in is
what goes on around those interchanges and the impacts that it would have to the
interchange and to make sure that we are doing the best job to facilitate those plans.
Staff feels that this would be an important opportunity to reiterate what our policies
are as far as how we deal with development and cooperating agencies.
Member Craig stated that the Transportation Board did not endorse this
characteristic and nor did the CAC. She asked why that board did not endorse the
characteristic and yet staff is still saying that this is a good characteristic.
Planner Jackson responded that Council was split on the discussion and decided to
leave it on and talk about it and get staffs input and listen to some more thoughts at
the March 18th regular session.
Member Gavaldon felt that this helped build a nice program of cooperation of
working with CDOT and FHWA and he felt that staff was on target and if this is
standard operating procedure that is great, but we need to make it visible and have
good linkages. He supports staff.
Member Colton if there were any areas where we think that private developers
would want to put in money for an interchange.
Planner Jackson replied no, there has been a lot of development interest at the
Prospect Interchange, but whether or not those developers would be interested in
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 14
some financial agreement with CDOT, he did not know. It is becoming much more
common up and down the Front Range and some of the interchange improvements
are a directly a result of private development money coming in and cooping with
CDOT. The opportunities are very limited to get any new interchanges in the Fort
Collins area, in most likelihood it would be an improvement of existing facilities.
Member Craig asked why we would even keep 'build new" in the characteristic.
Planner Jackson replied that there is a potential. There are two feasible locations.
The Planning and Zoning Board was split 5-2 to adopt this characteristic.
TR4:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic.
TR5:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic.
TR6:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic.
TR7:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic
Chairperson Torgerson felt that there was not enough focus made on automobile
traffic in general and the focus seemed to be on transit. He was not sure what he
would propose that is not here, it just seems like a focus problem.
Development and Redevelopment Patterns:
1102
Member Carpenter had a concern about the sensitivity of the historic character of
the downtown. She asked that wording be added for her concern.
Member Carpenter moved for adoption of the characteristic with the additional
wording "with sensitivity to the historic areas". Member Gavaldon seconded
the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 15
Member Colton would be supporting the motion because he did not remember this
being talked about in any other characteristic.
Chairperson Torgerson would not be supporting the motion He has concerns about
adding that to a sort of tool belt that he thinks that the historical preservation
community abuses.
The Motion was approved 4-3 with Members Bernth, Meyer and Torgerson
voting in the negative.
DRP2:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this characteristic.
DRP3:
Discussion: Member Craig had concerns about leaving this an open statement of
increased density/intensity instead of saying "increased density/intensity is
encouraged in appropriate areas". Member Craig felt that adding "in appropriate
areas" is not changing the characteristic too much.
Member Craig moved for adoption of the characteristic to read "As part of a
functioning transit plan, increased density/intensity is encouraged in
appropriate areas along High Frequency Transit Corridors (Mulberry Street,
portions of West Elizabeth Street, Timberline Road, Shields Street, Lemay
Avenue, and Horsetooth Road.)" Member Bernth seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
01VaI
Member Craig moved for adoption of the characteristic to read "As part of a
functioning transit plan, increased density/intensity is encouraged in
appropriate areas along designated Enhanced Travel Corridors (currently
Mason Street, Harmony Road and Conifer Street)." Member Carpenter
seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 16
DRP5, 7 and 9:
Discussion:
Chairperson Torgerson was concerned about setting a firm boundary on our Growth
Management Area even with the exceptions that are included. He thinks that it is
naive to think, "if we build it they will come." He thinks that the inverse is also true "if
we don't build it they won't come." We will continue to have population growth in this
area and he assumes that they will continue to build right outside of Fort Collins and
we won't have the ability to not only regulate how that looks, but also the ability to
take impact fees for the roads that they will be driving on. Member Gavaldon agreed
and right now we have people using our facilities and are in our GMA area and they
do not pay any taxes to help with those facilities.
Member Colton supports this because he thinks this is what the people want.
Without the various characteristics out there including expansion north of Anheuser
Busch, which people rejected in surveys and on the CAC. There are valuable
agriculture lands just north of Anheuser Busch that the County wants to preserve as
agriculture, including the CSU Farm. People want to have to have some buffers
between communities and maintain agriculture. That is part of the character of this
community why people move here. If we start building into all this, we are going to
lose some of the aspects of the quality of life that so many people enjoy. To the
east, it is going to be very expensive. There are a hodge podge of county
developments out there already. To send utilities through there will be difficult.
People do not want to be a sprawling California; they want to have a community with
an identity that they want to continue to live in.
Member Carpenter agreed that we should preserve the rural areas. Does it do that
to leave it in the County? Does that preserve it as rural land? She would be more
comfortable with the city be in control rather than having to do it through
negotiations. She felt that we are leaving this so wide open to happen or not
happen.
Member Torgerson added that in looking at the existing development, we can tell
what we are going to get and it is very unattractive east of 1-25.
Member Colton thought that it was interesting that the County feels that to protect
this agricultural land it should not be in the GMA. If we were wanting to expand
urban areas, that would be the way to do it with a Cooperative Planning Area. He
feels that we have the tools, we just need the will to go and make it happen. The
Open Space tax was just passed to go out and do these things, we just need to get
on with doing it.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 17
Member Meyer felt those intentions were good, but you can't expect the farmers out
there, no matter what the county says, when "Joe Developer" shows up and offers
them 10 times the money than anyone else is offering them. The farmer will say its
yours, I'm gone. There is no control over that and the County cannot tell you they
can protect you from that unless they are going to down zone them.
Member Colton stated that just because something is in the GMA we don't actually
zone it unless it is annexed. If we went all the way up to Wellington with the GMA
and say we want to protect this, we would have to get the County Commissioners to
agree to let us expand the GMA out there with the intention that we would down
zone. He did not think they would not agree to that.
Member Carpenter felt uncomfortable to even vote on these because she felt that
the lack of information she has, and she knows what she wants to have happen, and
this is saying there is one way to do this. There seems to be a lot of opposition to
that and a lot of different opinions that this is not going to make happen what we
want to happen.
Member Craig stated that staff is recommending this characteristic and they have
looked at it as much as any one. The CAC probably in 8/10 of their meetings have
been around these characteristics and they have finally decided that they are
comfortable with them all. The board opted not to spend our worksession on these;
we will leave it to the Advisory Committee and staff. They have now come to us with
their recommendations and now the board wants to spend their 20 hours on this.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the wording in Council's
Resolution and Staffs recommendation for DRP 5, 7 and 9. Member Meyer
seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter suggested a friendly amendment that all three go forward
or none. Member's Gavaldon and Meyer accepted the amendment.
The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairperson Torgerson voting in the
negative.
DRP11:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this characteristic 6-1.
Member Torgerson felt as though subarea plans should be taken out because they
have not been updated in so many years.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 18
DRP12:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this characteristic.
DRP13:
Member Torgerson did not agree with taking out "with thriving locally owned
businesses". He agreed with the CAC recommendation and wording changes.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of characteristic DRP13 as
stated in the CAC recommendation with the following wording "The Downtown
is the heart and core of the City including thriving locally owned businesses.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the following
characteristics:
DRP15, HN1, HN2, HN3 (with the Council Resolution wording).
Project: East Mulberry Corridor Plan Rezone # 11-03
Project Description: Recommendation to change the zoning
designation of 3 parcels totaling approximately
23.9 acres located at the northeast corner of
Lincoln/Lemay Avenue, from Industrial (1) to
Employment (E). In addition to change one parcel
totaling approximately 1.19 acres located at the
northeast corner of Lincoln/Lemay Avenue, from
Industrial (1) to Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood (LMN).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Board forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council to amend the Zoning Map in
accordance with the diagram titled, "Staff
Recommended Configuration."
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 19
Member Bernth declared a conflict of interest on this item and excused himself.
Pete Wray, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He wanted to clarify that there
were four properties with this agenda item as part of the rezoning. He was
proposing to remove the 4ch property owner from this agenda. That was the 1.19
acres proposed for the rezoning of the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. He
has not included that in the Council Packet for the hearing on the 18th. He has
spoken with the landowners and they are actually outside of the study area and were
not part of the public process for East Mulberry and actually had a contract on the
property to match the existing Industrial Zoning. He felt it was appropriate to
exclude them from this agenda item.
There are the three remaining parcels at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Lemay.
A small corner parcel of 1.71 acres, the middle parcel, which is 15.79 acres and the
6.47 acre parcel as part of the zoning change to Employment.
Planner Wray stated that there was one property owner there, the Webster's
representing the 15.79 acre parcel and they would be requesting a different zoning
classification to MMN rather than E.
Public Input
Jim Webster, was representing the Webster Family for this parcel of land. He was
there to protest the zoning change. He gave some history as to what they have
been through with the City of Fort Collins over the last 15 years. Mr. Webster asked
the Board to look at the drawing of the proposed street projects, which an estimated
30% of their property will be taken out by the right of ways of these streets. The
corner on the other side of the streets will be rendered useless. This property is
nothing more that a stop sign now.
Although, they do have a potential buyer that has worked his way around the street
issue, and has proposed a residential plan that would be transitional between the
multi -family residential to the south and the single family residential to the north.
The project would also blend in with Schrader's LMN, which he will probably get and
he would like the same consideration. Mr. Webster stated that they have been
fighting the city forever on this. They have had contract after contract and everytime
they get a deal together and a developer spends time and money (sometimes up to
2 years), they are eventually shut down by the city of Fort Collins.
Mr. Webster asked the Board for their consideration for the MMN zoning. They have
a potential buyer and have had before this even came up. It has been long and
troublesome and he felt that their family has been here since the late 1800's and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 20
they have contributed to this community. He wished the community would be a little
back.
Public Input
Member Gavaldon asked Planner Wray to outline the roads Mr. Webster referenced.
Planner Wray referred to a scanned enlargement of the properties being discussed.
He stated that the Webster's requested that Transportation Engineering take an
initial preliminary assessment of the proposed streets in the East Mulberry Corridor
Plan and the adopted Master Street Plan. They wanted to see a general alignment
to look at the Lemay extension, the extension of Buckingham over to Duff and the
ultimate extension of International Blvd. from Timberline east to Lincoln.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the International Blvd. Extension wouldn't happen
unless the airport closed
Planner Wray replied staff was still looking at that. They have tried to show an
alignment that would not preclude the airport operations. The implementation of
that extension would not happen until other properties came forward for
development around the airport. He thinks that there is a chance that could
happen with the airport still continuing operation.
Member Craig knew that this area was discussed in depth in the East Mulberry
Corridor Plan adoption. She asked that Planner Wray give some background as
to why it was decided to zone this property E, Employment.
Planner Wray responded that in developing the plan, there was an extensive
public process to work up the ultimate Framework Plan that shows the existing
development pattern and the future land uses for this study area. Staff received
support for identifying some strategic locations for changing the development
pattern at key intersection areas. The first one was at Greenfield where there
was an opportunity to add some employment land uses to strengthen the
gateway when coming off the Interstate into the community. The next location
was at the Timberline intersection to add some employment, another location
was changed from Industrial, and the final location was at Lincoln and Lemay.
Some of the criteria that was looked at for that change was to add some
opportunities for more opportunities for new development than the Industrial
would otherwise allow.
They looked at opportunities for business expansion from some of the small start
up businesses that are in the Industrial area around the airport. So those
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 21
businesses would have some opportunities to move up into the upgraded office
opportunities within the Employment District. Also in looking at some of the
secondary uses that are Employment designation for offices, banks, even some
residential (25% allowed), which provides more opportunity than Industrial
allows. Finally, in this Lincoln and Lemay area, to add the Employment would
provide a transition from the existing Industrial uses and any new development
on the west side of Lemay, and looking to the south and north.
Member Gavaldon asked if it would cause a conflict in the East Mulberry Corridor
Plan if there were two Employment designations and a MMN in the middle.
Planner Wray replied that when this was brought to staff's attention last spring,
the representative of the Webster's came forward with this recommendation, he
took it to staff, through several departments, GMLT, to Planning and Zoning
Board Worksessions and Council Study Sessions. At that time there was
support for that change. Staff weighed the options for both of the
recommendations. He thought that there were pros and cons to both options.
The MMN at that location was looked at in relationship to the Wal-Mart Shopping
Center. There is a grocery store component to the Wal-Mart, but it is not an
official Commercial Center as is identified in City Plan with the City Structure
Plan Map. There is also the Buffalo Run Apartments to the north of Wal-Mart,
which has the appearance of MMN, although it is still in the Commercial Zoning
classification.
Planner Wray did not think it would be a significant blow to the East Mulberry
Corridor Plan to consider MMN. It could fit there, it was not how we typically
describe our Neighborhood Commercial Centers. The official Neighborhood
Commercial Center identified in the plan is off of Greenfield which is consistent
with the City Structure Plan and that is why the Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood was identified within walking distance to that Center over there.
Member Carpenter thought that what Planner Wray was saying was that staff did
not feel real strongly that this absolutely has to be Employment, it could be MMN
and it would still fit within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan.
Planner Wray replied yes. They did have a lot of discussions in working with the
airport owners through this process. Initially they were concerned with adding
additional residential around the airport. That may preclude or add additional
compatibility issues for support of that airport. Staff originally had looked at LMN
around the northwest portion of the airport when this process was started. In
working through the issues, staff did not want to preclude the airport operation,
which was very important. Staff eliminated or reduced the amount of residential
up there. He thought that the last time he had heard from the owner of the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 22
airport, it was his understanding that the owner felt that this was far enough away
from the actual runway that it was not that much of an issue.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that Planner Wray had included on page 4
of his staff report, the criteria for quasi-judicial rezonings, meaning ones that are
640 acres or less. The mandatory criteria are that the rezoning be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and/or it could be justified by changed conditions in
the neighborhood surrounding, including the property. If the staff is on the fence
about this, would a change to MMN also necessitate a change to the Structure
Plan Map.
Planner Wray replied that was correct and also the East Mulberry Corridor Plan
as well to support that change.
Member Craig stated that she was on the Advisory Committee for East Mulberry
and she definitely remembers that the concerns were the airport. Both the noise
compatibility and the safety issue. There were strong concerns that they did not
want to put that density of housing that close to the airport. She thought that it
was very strong as far as the Advisory Committee was concerned that the zoning
remain E, Employment.
Chairperson Torgerson felt that this sites potential for a crash was low because
the pattern actually goes to the north not the south of the airport. There would
not even be flyovers in a standard pattern.
Planner Wray stated that this was a joint effort with Larimer County and if Council
decides to approve a change to MMN then the East Mulberry Corridor Plan
would also have to be amended by Larimer County.
Member Carpenter stated that we have a citizen who is requesting something
and the Board can't remember why it was done as it has been. The Board
doesn't really have a good reason to leave it the way it is. She thought that it
made sense to go ahead and let this citizen do what he wants to do. She did not
feel there was any reason not to.
Chairperson Torgerson thought the only down side was to have to go through
this long cumbersome process.
Member Carpenter moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of
numbers 1 and 3 to E, Employment according to the findings of fact in the
staff report on page 5. Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 23
Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion because he felt there
would be hodge podge. He felt either all of it should go to one zoning. He felt if
the zoning was left to E, Employment, a modification could be requested to allow
a change to the 25% residential allowed.
Member Carpenter felt it was not hodge podge, it was mixed -use planning.
Member Gavaldon felt that they were tying to accomplish the same thing, but it
was easier this way because we don't have to amend the Mulberry Corridor Plan
with MMN.
Member Carpenter said there is a difference because if we rezone the property
to MMN tonight, they know what they can do. If we say leave it E, Employment
and do a modification, then they are still are hanging out there trying to do all the
work they have to do ahead of time without knowing if they can have that
modification.
The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Bernth not voting due to a
conflict of interest.
Member Carpenter moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of parcel
2 to MMN, in addition to amending the Structure Plan and also the East
Mulberry Corridor Plan. Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. She felt that they went
through this whole process with the Advisory Committee. They discussed the
pros and cons and they strongly felt that this was not an area for MMN.
Member Gavaldon reiterated his previous comment
Member Colton felt that we needed some consistency and felt that the Board was
not getting all the information again tonight.
Chairperson Torgerson said that if Member Colton felt that he was not getting all
the information maybe a continuance would be in order.
Member Colton said that when we have Citizen Advisory Committees being
strongly against and having staff supporting that. He would like to get some
information from the airport management and on airport noise at this location.
He felt that this should be continued until they have that full information.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 2003
Page 24
Planner Wray offered feedback from the airport owners and could also look back
at the discussions with the citizens committee because there are not formal
minutes.
Member Carpenter withdrew her motion for Parcel 2, to receive more
information.
Member Colton moved to continue this item to the next hearing, which will
be held on April 3rd. The Board would like more information from the
airport on the noise concerns and also to get information on the meetings
that were held before regarding this topic.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Approved by the Board July 17, 2003