Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/20/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m Roll Call: Gavaldon, Meyer, Schmidt, Colton, Carpenter, Craig and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Jones, Virata, Stringer, Joy, Stanford, Reiff, Harridan, D. Moore, Stokes, Barnes, Deines, and Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. #24-02B Whitham Property, Overall Development Plan. (PULLED TO DISCUSSION — CRAIG) Discussion Agenda: 2. #18-03 Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non - Conforming Use. (CONTINUED TO 12/4103) 3. #29-01A Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan. (CONTINUED TO 12/4/03 per the applicant's request) Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 4. Recommendation to City Council regarding the Fall 2003 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Board is the final authority on the following item: 5. #26-01 Redtail, Project Development Plan. Other Business: Changes to the Natural Areas Policy Plan in the Windsor/Timnath IGA City Planner Ted Shepard recommending dividing the Biannual Land Use Code Revisions into two parts, first discussing the Small Scale Events Center, then the remainder of the item. Member Craig asked to pull the Whitham Property, Overall Development Plan, #24-02B, to the discussion agenda. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 2 Chairperson Torgerson stated that, given some technical difficulties, the Small Scale Events Center item would be discussed first. Planner Shepard stated that this component of the Fall Biannual Land Use Code changes was brought forward by an applicant. He stated that the applicant would be recommending some changes to the performance standards and definition that staff has found to be acceptable. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley, gave a presentation representing Julie Baker and Wendi Meyer. She stated that they are seeking to develop a 'Reception Center" primarily to hold weddings, parties, seminars, etc. The concept is to provide an urban refuge and the most appropriate zone district for this is the UE zone — Urban Estate. Ms. Ripley stated that there is currently no facility like this in Fort Collins. She stated that they did not want the project in a commercial zone because it should be in a place that provides certain characteristics not found in that zone district. Ms. Ripley showed slides of similar facilities. Julie Baker spoke with respect to the specific facility she would like to open. She spoke about the features of the facility she envisioned. The site she is looking at is the Thomas Farm. Ms. Ripley stated that she thought the project could be accomplished on the site which is 15 acres in size. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would like to keep the comments more general to the Code change and overall concept as opposed to a specific property. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated concern about the process and wanted to stay focused to the issue at hand. Ms. Ripley stated that the first step in her process was to define the concept. She stated that though the Planning Director could add a use to the zone district, staff decided not to do that in this case. It was also not possible to rezone the site to HC because of some of the uses. She stated that Stacey Richter would speak. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he did not want to have Stacey Richter speak about her specific project and asked that if she did, she should be limited in time. Ms. Ripley stated that Ms. Richter has information not specific to her site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 3 Chairperson Torgerson asked that the comments be specific only to the issue. Ms. Richter, publisher of the Perfect Wedding Guide for Colorado, spoke about reception sites. She presented the Board with information on the wedding industry and made a case for the need for this type of facility in northern Colorado. She also cited reasons for wanting this type of facility in the Urban Estate zone rather than the Commercial zone. She stated that one of the performance standards for this type of small-scale event center would include having a large lot size to keep the site farther away from neighbors and to accommodate parking. She noted the possible revenue generation the facilities would provide. Ms. Ripley concluded the presentation by stating that some additional performance standards had been added since the worksession. These include the fact that all parking needs to be accommodated on site; minimum building size should be 5,000 square feet; the primary facility needs to be at least 300 feet from the nearest single family residence; and the site must be at least 4 acres in size. She added that the facilities would not house sporting or athletic events or large concerts. Public Input There was no public input Public Input Closed Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon listed off other sites available for wedding uses. He asked if this type of facility would work in another zone district. Planner Shepard replied that the question would be better asked of the applicant. Ms. Ripley replied that this facility would not be allowed in LMN or in many of the areas mentioned. She stated that the new facilities would house weddings in an open space with an indoor facility as well as outdoor, gardens, and nice architecture. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that there is not a shortage of wedding facilities and asked what the percentage of business lost in this area was without this type of facility. Ms. Baker replied that there are probably three facilities in northern Colorado that are similar. All of these facilities do get clientele from Fort Collins but Ms. Baker Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 4 did not have an exact number. She stated that this facility would be completely different from anything else. Chairperson Torgerson asked if this type of use would be allowed in the county zone district in which the property currently lies. Ms. Baker replied that the property is in Larimer County and falls within the GMA which means that it has to be brought into the City as soon as changes are made to it. Member Schmidt asked how the impacts would be mitigated for the urban estate neighborhoods in which these would lie. She stated that noise and traffic would likely be issues. Ms. Baker replied that her property is off of a major street, surrounded by commercial property. The drive to the property does not pass any homes. Member Schmidt asked what the criteria would be if this change was made to the Land Use Code. Planner Shepard replied that the nuisance portion of the Code, enforced by the Streets Department, would cover noise issues. Chairperson Torgerson stated that uses in Chapter 4 of the Land Use Code could not be modified. He asked if perhaps uses could be made modifiable so that we could look at individual cases such as this one. Attorney Eckman replied that the reason it was done that way is because the case law does not support the granting of use variances. He therefore discouraged the Board from granting a "use variance." Member Colton asked about doing a Structure Plan and zoning change in order to come up with a community benefit. Planner Shepard replied that that would be a way to approach it and that it was one of the considered scenarios. It was not chosen because the protection offered by the UE zone is desired. Chairperson Torgerson asked if churches and places of worship were allowed in the Urban Estate zone. Planner Shepard replied that they were. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 5 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if we were really ready to go with this type of recommendation. Planner Shepard replied that that was why tonight's testimony was important. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would like to see the item pushed to the Spring Land Use Code changes in order to further study the issue. He stated concern over discriminating against other uses. Member Schmidt asked if this project would have to meet street and traffic standards as any other commercial project would. Planner Shepard replied that Article 3 standards would apply at the PDP level. Chairperson Torgerson asked if staff was recommending approval at this point. Planner Shepard replied that staff is recommending that the definition be amended as suggested and that the definition be added to Article 5, that the use be added in commercial districts, and that the Board consider adding the use to the UE zone. Chairperson Torgerson asked if Planner Shepard would recommend adding the use to the UE zone district. Director Gloss stated that staff came into the hearing with the recommendation that this not be approved; however, staff did feel it was important for the Board to hear the testimony of the petitioners. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would be comfortable with it if there weren't any outdoor music. Ms. Baker stated that there would likely be string quartets playing but that they were agreeable to having limits or time constraints placed on the music. Ms. Ripley stated that it might be difficult to define that for every circumstance depending on the site size. She stated that the compatibility standards of the Code could be used for each individual project. Member Craig stated that she was not ready to put this in Urban Estate given that there were no guarantees in the Land Use Code. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 6 Member Carpenter stated that she was okay with not putting the use in UE tonight but stated that the idea did need to be addressed. It could be workable with the correct parameters. Urban Estate is really the only zone in which the idea makes sense, from a business point of view. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of the Small Scale Events Center to be added to Article 5 and to commercial zones and to postpone considering adding the definition to Urban Estate to the spring Land Use Code revisions to allow for appropriate performance standards to be discussed. Member Colton seconded the motion. Planner Shepard stated that the motion -makers should be aware that the petitioners still have the ability, under the Land Use Code, to come in as a text amendment which would be a very specific kind of request. Member Colton stated that we need to make sure protections are in place for the residents of the Urban Estate zones. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Whitham Property — Overall Development Plan, #24-026 Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan consisting of proposed uses such as single- family detached residential, two-family residential, single-family attached residential, multi -family residential, a neighborhood center, and a neighborhood park on 160.3 acres. The property is located on the south side of East Vine Drive, east of North Timberline Road, and west of Interstate 25. The property is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 7 Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig stated that she wanted assurance that Greenfields Court would be connecting through and that there is some kind of understanding with the railroad that the road could cross the tracks at grade. She stated concern over the level of service on Vine, though it cannot really be considered at ODP level. Planner Olt showed the area on the site plan. Tom Reiff, Transportation Planner, stated that the City has met with the railroad representatives from Great Western and has spoken with the Public Utilities Commission regarding the crossing. He stated that the railroad representatives did not see a problem with the crossing at grade as the line is not a main line, just a spur. Member Craig asked why the neighborhood park was being put in the lower corner and noted that there may be as many as 500 homes in the area before a neighborhood park is in place. She stated that the Land Use Code states that the park needs to be where 90% of the housing can get to it. She stated that the point of LMN zoning is to build neighborhoods with gathering places. Planner Olt replied that the ODP shows two forms of parks in this location, due to one park being on the Parks Master Plan. It could occur in one of two locations. There is one area that could be a possible public neighborhood park about 8 acres in size. There is another 160 acre parcel to the west, currently in the rezoning process, where it could occur. The preference is to locate it on the Eastridge site, however, there may be some potential wetland issues. Craig Foreman of the Parks Department, asked the developer to show this park in this particular site. There will also be a small neighborhood park, about 1 acre in size, which will satisfy the LMN zone district requirements. It is possible that if the public neighborhood park weren't to occur, that one could move to another location. Member Craig asked what triggers the developer to have to put the park in. Planner Olt replied that he believed the park would have to be built with the initial phase because there are no other parks within the minimum required distance. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, stated that there were reasons for the parks to be located where they were shown including the locations of the neighborhood center and nearby natural areas. However, Mr. Sherman stated that it would be alright to move the park to the north if that were a concern of the Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 8 Member Craig stated that though she appreciated that, she was comfortable that the park would have connectivity with the first -built residences. Member Schmidt asked if all phases of this project would have to meet requirements for impacts on Timberline and Vine at the time that they come forth with a PDP. Planner Olt replied that they would have to meet public facilities requirements at time of PDP review. Member Schmidt asked if there was a portion of the ODP that would be outside the '/z mile area from Timberline and Vine which would therefore keep them from having to meet the APF requirements. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, replied that APF would always apply, no matter where on the site they build. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why a short-term traffic impact analysis was not performed. Mr. Stanford replied that, at the ODP level, long-term is usually all that is requested. As portions of the project start coming in at PDP stage, the short-term detail is analyzed. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why he did not receive Appendix B of the traffic report. Planner Olt replied that the Appendix was the crunch numbers. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon replied that he wanted them. He stated concern about the APF not being addressed at the ODP level. Public Input Henry Dijack, citizen, gave his testimony to the Board. He spoke about the 40- foot buffer zone. He stated that his plant is operated often 24 hours a day with trucks coming in early in the morning. He stated that once the homes are put in there, the owners will complain. He asked if perhaps a park could be put in on the other side of the buffer. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 9 Chairperson Torgerson stated that one of the Land Use Code changes that will be considered tonight is putting an increased buffer between residential and industrial uses, primarily because of this project. Bert Pedry (sp?), owner of land adjacent to Mr. Dijack and the site in question, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated concern about the land being zoned as industrial and being used as agricultural. Mr. Sherman stated that the buffer between the site and Imutek is just a generic kind of buffer, the width of which will be determined with future, site -specific development applications. Chairperson Torgerson stated that regardless of the buffer shown on the ODP, they will have to comply with the Land Use Code standards when they come in with a PDP, which would include the standard being considered later tonight. Planner Olt replied that was correct. Director Gloss stated that the Land Use Code, at the present time, does not require that buffers be shown on an ODP. Member Craig moved for approval of Whitham Property, Overall Development Plan, File #24-02B. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not support the motion. He stated that he felt like this project would be detrimental to the APF in the area. He also stated that the project was not in total compliance with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Member Craig stated agreement with Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon; however, she stated that she would support the motion because of the purview of the Board at ODP stage. Member Colton stated that the improvements needed in the area need to be paid for by development; there will never be enough money to pay for them with tax initiatives. Member Meyer stated that we need to be aware that we are imposing on some people in the area and stated that the people buying houses need to be made aware of the industry in the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 10 The motion was approved 6-1, with Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon voting in the negative. Project: Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -Conforming Use Project Description: Request to replace three existing dilapidated horse sheds with a new barn. The new barn would be 1,480 s.f. featuring six horse stalls. The property is located on 3.3 acres at 2304 West Prospect Road and is zoned RL, Low - Density Residential. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Ted Shepard stated that this project was not discussed at worksession and he distributed some photographs of the site to the Board from a neighbor. Rosalie and Augustine Godinez, 1508 Ponderosa Drive, gave their testimony to the Board. She stated that the pictures were from her. Ms. Godinez stated that her concern lies with the location of the barn and its proximity to her home. She stated that her views and sunshine would be lost. She stated that the property owner has been dumping manure along her fence line in the past and asked what kind of upkeep would occur with the new barn. She stated that she was concerned about other animals, such as chicken and sheep, and the health department was called. Ms. Godinez stated that three sheds have been taken down and that the owner now wants to put up six sheds. Mr. Godinez stated that he would like to see the barn located where the sheds were torn down. Cruz Godinez, brother-in-law of the former speaker, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated concern about the flies and odor in the area as well as possibly mice if the barn were built. He stated that the barn could be located in another area on the property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 11 Peg Hood, 1509 Village Lane, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she has both side and rear yard footage that backs up to the Kaufman property. She stated that she purchased her home in 1983 and that the Kaufman property has always been a horse property. She stated that the snakes and mice are part of the country feeling and that Ms. Kaufman has done an excellent job of improving the property. Tom Blaloch (sp?), 1505 Village Lane, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the property has had many improvements over the time Ms. Kaufman has owned it. He stated that he has no problem with the odor or snakes. Elizabeth Kaufman, applicant, gave her presentation. She stated that the location of the barn will preserve access in a horseshoe shape around the property to ensure that fire trucks will be able to access the residence. If the barn were moved further south, it eliminates the access on the west side of the property. She stated that this property is a non -conforming property as it has been a horse property since prior to its annexation and has remained so continuously since 1970. Likewise, sheep and chickens have also been on the property since then. It was also allowed for cattle and hogs but that use has been allowed to lapse since purchasing the property two years ago. Ms. Kaufman stated that she had not heard the complaints directly from the Godinez'. She stated that she composts manure and is in the process of planting trees around the perimeter of the property. Ms. Kaufman stated that her objective was to improve the property and that the barn will be attractive. She added that the barn could be 25 feet in height but that she was proposing 15 feet. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if a neighborhood meeting was held on the project. Planner Shepard replied that there was not. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if that should have happened since this is a non -conforming use. Planner Shepard replied that it was hard to say. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked what PFA had said about the access. Ms. Kaufman replied that they did not require her to move the barn but that she had a personal concern that the truck be able to get around the property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 12 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that smaller trucks are used for those situations and asked why the barn was not being built on the previous building envelope. Ms. Kaufman replied that the change in location of the barn was her decision and that PFA had informed her that if there was a fire back there, they would bring a truck in. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Ms. Kaufman would be flexible in keeping the barn on the south end of the property. Ms. Kaufman replied that it was not practical for the property because it would not allow for a horseshoe -shaped turn -around for large trucks for hay delivery, etc. Vice -Chairperson Gavadlon asked what the difference in square footage would be between the old and new barns. Planner Shepard replied that it was about a 400 square foot increase Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Ms. Kaufman had spoken with the Godinei regarding their concerns. Ms. Kaufman replied that she was not aware of their concern until this evening and added that she has good relations with 8 of 9 of her neighbors. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that it makes good neighborhood relations to work with everyone and again asked why there was no neighborhood meeting. Ms. Kaufman stated that the Board has letters and petitions in support of the project from most of her other neighbors — she stated that she hoped that reflected her effort in reaching out to the neighbors who are willing to work with her. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that a neighborhood meeting should have been held. Planner Shepard stated that there is a 292 square foot difference between the old and new barn. Member Schmidt asked where the hay storage was on the facility. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 13 Ms. Kaufman replied that it is adjacent to the drive right to the left of the gate, not in the barn. Member Schmidt asked what Ms. Kaufman planned to do on the 5 feet between where the barn will be and the Godinez property line. Ms. Kaufman replied that the manure that is there is working to amend the soil to plant trees as screening, not as manure storage. Chairperson Torgerson asked for site shots of the property. Ms. Kaufman showed site shots of the property and the sheds that were removed. She stated that there is a 6-foot privacy fence between her property and the Godinez property. Member Craig asked about using the old footprint as a start for the new barn and therefore only impacting part of the Godinez' yard. Ms. Kaufman replied that the new barn will be wider so to bring it further south constricts the ability to get some type of vehicle around the house. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the side yard setback Code requirements. He stated that it is 5 feet in the RL zone district from interior side lot property lines. He asked if this would be considered an interior side lot given that it is the rear yard of the Godinez property. Planner Shepard replied that the front of the property is Prospect, the sides would be the east and west, and the rear would be the north. The interior side is a function of the lot being in between two others. Member Meyer moved for approval of Kaufman Bar, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -Conforming Use, File #1 B-03. Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Schmidt asked if the number of horses would increase. Ms. Kaufman replied that the new barn, though larger in square footage, has two less stalls — 6 as opposed to 8. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not support the motion based on it being a non -conforming use and a neighborhood meeting not being held. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 14 Member Schmidt stated that the barn will act somewhat as a buffer because the horses will be on the other side of the barn. She stated that landscaping and installing trees will hopefully alleviate some of the problems. Member Colton stated that he would not support the motion at this time but would support a continuance to allow the neighbors to talk with staff to try to figure out a mutual placement of the barn. Member Meyer stated that she would rescind her motion if a neighborhood meeting were to be held, not just a meeting between the two parties. Chairperson Torgerson asked if Ms. Kaufman would rather the item be continued or voted upon tonight. Ms. Kaufman replied that it is a frustrating situation for her to go into winter with no shelter but she did not have a strong opinion either way. She stated that she did not believe more time would end up in any different result. Member Meyer stated that she thought the barn would be fine but told Ms. Kaufman that the Board may not approve the project which would force her to start the process again. With a continuance, she would not have to start the process again. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the process would be if she came in with a different site proposal. Director Gloss replied that she would have to come in which a whole new application and that it would be a short timeframe to have the item come to the December 4`h hearing after a neighborhood meeting. Member Colton asked why a neighborhood meeting would be required as opposed to getting just the conflicting neighbors together. Member Meyer replied that she had a problem with Ms. Kaufman having to start all over and stated that Ms. Kaufman had the right to put the barn wherever as long as she met the setbacks and that views are not protected. Member Colton asked if the project was voted down, if it could then be continued Attorney Eckman replied that the Board could rescind the original vote. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 15 The motion failed 4-3 with members Gavaldon, Schmidt, Colton, and Craig voting in the negative. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved to rescind the last vote. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked to what hearing date this would be continued Director Gloss replied that the next hearing is December 4th. Based on the Code, we have to have a two week mailed notice for a neighborhood meeting, if we want to call it that. The notice period could likely be decrease for some kind of an informal meeting. Otherwise, the project would be pushed to January 15th Member Schmidt stated that although a more conventional neighborhood meeting is a nice idea, it likely won't help anything in this situation. Perhaps a mediation discussion with neighborhood resources would be more helpful. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved to continue the Kaufman Bar, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -Conforming Use, File #18-03, to December 4th. In the meantime, staff and the Neighborhood Resources center should hold a mediation session with Ms. Kaufman and any interested neighbors. Attorney Eckman asked if that must apply to all adjoining neighbors or just to the complaining neighbors. Member Schmidt stated that they are all invited. Attorney Eckman recommended that the Board not mandate a mediation session with anyone because it is not part of our procedure. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that all neighbors should be invited in order to meet the needs of the most people. Member Schmidt recommended that other neighbors come in case the mediation results in the barn being located where it may impact other neighbors. Attorney Eckman asked what should happen if the complaining neighbors refuse to participate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 16 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon reworded his motion to continue the Kaufman Bar, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -Conforming Use, File #18- 03, to December 4th. In the meantime, staff and the Neighborhood Resources center should offer an invitation to the neighbors to attend a neighborhood meeting for affected parties. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she wanted the item resolved and not turned into a bigger issue than it really is. She asked if a small discussion with the Godinei and Ms. Kaufman would resolve anything. Planner Shepard replied that that was difficult to answer. He would prefer that the Neighborhood Resources office act as a third -party mediator. Planner Shepard added that he is already on record as approving the request because he believes it meets the listed criteria. Member Carpenter stated that she would vote for this just to have it done but she stated that she thought the Board was really going beyond their role. The Board is set up to make decisions when there are disputes. She stated that asking mediators to come in may be outside the purview of the Board. Member Meyer stated concern about the fact the Ms. Kaufman "played by the rules" and that she still is not being allowed to continue her project. Member Colton disagreed, stating that adversely impacting one neighbor is included in the "rules." The motion was approved 6-1, with Chairperson Torgerson voting in the negative. Project: Windsor/Johnstown Inter -Governmental Agreement Project Description: This project deals with a revenue -sharing IGA having to do with the Larimer County tax to help preserve open space. This request requires a modification of a Natural Areas Policy Plan which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 17 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, gave a brief explanation of this item. He stated that there is basically a one -line change to the Natural Areas Policy Plan that basically says that we, as a City, are going to enter in to this IGA. He presented the Board with that one -line change. He asked for the Board's endorsement of a resolution before Council that will allow the City to enter into this IGA with the partners and help preserve open space. Mr. Stokes stated that it will allow us to share revenues with Johnstown and Windsor. A resolution will come before Council asking them for approval of a modification to the Natural Areas Policy Plan which is the sentence provided. Member Craig asked about #7 of the agreement which states that "the portion of revenue so paid to Windsor and Johnstown shall be calculated as required in the initiative for division among the municipalities and shall be based upon population formula or sales tax formula as specified in the initiative for that land area, only within the Larimer County. She asked if it would be population formula or sales tax formula. Mr. Stokes replied that he was not familiar with how the County distributes the monies or how they make that calculation. The reason that Johnstown and Windsor were excluded originally was because they were not wholly incorporated in Larimer County. Member Craig stated that she would probably support this but wanted Council to be aware of her concerns about which calculation would be used. Member Colton asked if this was a matter of timeliness or if it could be continued to the December 4ch hearing. Mr. Stokes replied that it is time -sensitive in the fact that it is coming before Council on December 2nd. He stated that it could be placed on the next Council agenda. Member Colton stated that it should be continued due to the missing data. Chairperson Torgerson asked if that was already determined in the legislation that voted the tax in or if the Board would be changing it one way or another. Mr. Stokes replied that the formula is set though he is not certain how it is calculated. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 18 Member Carpenter suggested sending the approval on to Council with the note that there are some questions about the formula, given that Council is the final authority. Member Craig stated that she was willing to do that if the issue were time - sensitive but stated concern about the formula. Mr. Stokes stated that as the communities grow, both in size and population, it is likely that their pro rata share of the revenues will increase. Member Craig asked if the Natural Resource Advisory Board accepted this change without knowing what formula is used. Mr. Stokes replied that the NRAB voted to endorse this to Council and that this issue did not come up. He stated that the two primary objections were a legal objection because this was originally a ballot initiative approved by the public, the change should perhaps be brought back to the public. However, all attorneys who have reviewed this in all municipalities have approved it. The other objection was essentially an objection to providing revenues back to Johnstown. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he could go ahead with approving it but stated that he would like to know the formula. Member Colton moved to continue the Windsor/Johnstown IGA item to the December 4th, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearing to allow time to understand the formula. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Member Colton would be satisfied with approving the item if that information was obtained and presented at worksession. Member Schmidt suggested adding language about the formula and how it is used when the item goes to Council. Mr. Stokes replied that that could be done in the Agenda Item Summary for Council. Member Colton reiterated that he would like to continue the item and have Council put in their next agenda. The motion was not seconded. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 19 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved to approve the recommendation to City Council regarding the Windsor/Johnstown Natural Areas Cooperative Sharing Program, outlined in the staff memo, and requested that the formula information be forwarded to City Council. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Colton stated that he would still like to get a copy of the language and there is an issue, that it be discussed at worksession. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Redtail, Project Development Plan Project Description: Request for one of two development scenarios. Alternative A proposes 141 dwelling units (8 two-family dwellings, 37 single family attached dwellings, and 96 multifamily dwellings). Alternative B provides up to 109,234 square feet of office and a total of 49 residential dwelling units (4 tow -family dwellings, 37 single family dwellings, and 8 multifamily dwellings). The site is located north of the City's Redtail Grove Natural Area, west of the intersection of College Avenue and Cameron Drive, south of Fairway Lane and east of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The site is in the C, Commercial zone district.. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner, Troy Jones, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the applicant has requested approval of two scenarios. Four of the buildings within the proposal have a flexible use proposed, either residential or office. Alternative A would be exclusively residential on all buildings and would have 141 dwelling units. Alternative B would have 109,234 square feet of office in four buildings and 49 dwelling units. The site is zoned C, Commercial, and is located off South College where the former Mill Brothers Nursery site was. The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 20 PDP is 11.43 acres in an L-shape, part of which is along the BNSF railroad tracks. There is also one modification request for two different issues. Some of the existing portions of wetlands are being removed and mitigated elsewhere on - site. This will also occur for some of the riparian forest areas. Doug Moore, City Environmental Planner, stated that Redtail Grove Natural Area is adjacent to the property and that Tynan's Nissan is up the hill. Planner Jones showed a vicinity map of the area. He stated that the northern part abuts the Woodley's Furniture store. He stated that staff is supporting the modification requests for several reasons. The modification has to be shown to be not detrimental to the public good as well as one of three other findings. In this case, staff believes the modification is beneficial to the City. The after -condition shows more ecological value to the wetlands and riparian trees than the before - condition. There are basically three reasons why the modification would benefit the City. The first is that the Mason Transportation Corridor South Transit Center (the Corridor runs along the railroad tracks adjacent to this site) is approximately 300 feet north of this site and has a direct connection with Fossil Boulevard which stubs into this site. There is a bicycle/pedestrian connection from the Fossil Creek Trail that will be built within the next two years. The extension of the Mason Street Corridor from the South Transit Center would connect to the Fossil Creek Trail. Having origins and destinations right on that Trail is of public interest. The other reason is the implementation of the South College Access Management Plan and coordination of traffic signals which this project allows to happen. This street connection would also allow a second point of access for emergency access. Planner Jones showed some site shots of the area and some illustrations of the before and after conditions. He stated that the project meets Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code and staff recommends approval. John Prouty, LaGunitas Redtail, Inc., gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the buildings on the site are concentrated in order to allow for more green space. He added that the amount of asphalt has been decreased by putting parking under 4 buildings. The result is a project with 7.2 acres of open space and landscaping, which is 75% of the net acreage of the site. There are 38 acres to the south of natural area and mountain views to the west. Mr. Prouty wanted to make a point regarding the natural features protection in the Land Use Code. He did so by stating that there are no provisions to deal with displacement of natural features. He stated that the terms "feasible" and "prudent" are ambiguous. He stated that the Land Use Code should be simplified and clarified in these regards and that the City departments should be empowered to work out reasonable solutions in technical areas like this. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 21 Public Input There was no public input Public Input Closed Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the signalized intersection at Cameron Drive, with respect to the South College Access Management Plan, and how close it would be to another signal. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, replied that there is a possibility of a signal just north of it at Fairway which will happen as the need arises. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he was concerned about those two signals being too close together and stated that he would like to see one of the two signals eliminated. Mr. Stanford replied that there is a desire not to put signals in; they are only installed when absolutely necessary. Chairperson Torgerson stated that is not within the Board's purview to consider the signalization. Member Craig stated that the reason for cutting down many of the trees was to make the Cameron connection, thereby warranting a signal. Therefore, it may be within the purview of the Board to discuss the signalization with this item. She asked about the tree mitigation plan. Doug Moore, City Environmental Planner, replied that there are quite a few trees that will be removed with the project and he illustrated those on a site plan for the Board. He stated that some of the trees are considered invasive species and would therefore not require any type of mitigation. There are 41 cottonwoods that will be removed, about 50% of which are cotton -bearing and considered nuisance trees in Fort Collins. These are also not required to be mitigated. An average mitigation of 2.5:1 will be required for the loss of the rest of the trees. Mr. Moore stated that there are also some Russian Olives being removed from the site. Overall, there are 72 trees required for mitigation, above and beyond what the project had to put in. Member Craig asked if the mitigation would be at least 2:1 for the lost non -cotton bearing cottonwoods. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 22 Mr. Moore replied that the mitigation was 2.5:1 at 3-inch diameters. Planner Jones stated that one of the modifications dealt with the wetland and the riparian trees, Section 3.4.1 of the Code. Member Craig moved for approval of the Redtail PDP modification request to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 and 3.5.2(C) with the justification of not being detrimental to the public good. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. Attorney Eckman stated that the findings of fact and conclusion needed to be adopted for the motion. Member Craig stated that the only justification she could accept would be the public good item. Attorney Eckman stated that it has to not only be not detrimental to the public good but also has to meet one of the other three: hardship standard, equal to or better than, or the important community need standard. Member Craig corrected her motion for approval of the Redtail PDP modification request to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 with the justification of not being detrimental to the public good and being equal to or better than the standard. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the corrected motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of the Redtail PDP modification request to Land Use Code Section 3.5.2(C) with the justification of not being detrimental to the public good and meeting the hardship standard. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of Redtail PDP, File #26-01. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 23 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that though he was concerned about the signalization at Cameron, he was very concerned about adding the second signal north at Fairway. He stated that he was going to vote against the project because of those concerns but he will support it. Chairperson Torgerson asked about approving the project for two different uses and the legalities of that. He stated that the Board would actually be approving two different plans for the same site. Planner Jones stated that the applicant was told that the mylars would have to be one or the other and one or the other would be vested. The approval allows staff to vest either or, but the decision will be made at final. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the Board could pick one or the other or if the staff works with the applicant on that. Planner Jones replied that the request is for either/or and staff is recommending approval for either/or because they both satisfy the Code. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the uses are fundamentally different and stated concern about allowing the footprint to work for either. Mr. Prouty stated that he would proceed only with residential. Planner Jones stated that Alternative A is solely residential. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon restated his motion for approval of Redtail PDP, File #26-01 to be done with Alternative A, residential. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would prefer the site not be built on at all but, as that is not a choice, she thanked staff for the effort put in to work with this. She stated that mitigation can be a win -win for both the applicant and the City. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 24 Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Fall 2003 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig stated that her issues were with items 6-13, 6-15, and 6-25. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he only had issue with 6-15. City Senior Planner, Ted Shepard, stated that he was ready to answer any questions on the definition of adjacent. Member Craig stated that the word really means abutting or adjoining and changing it to nearby still makes for interpretive language. Planner Shepard replied that the goal was to clarify that adjacent does not mean adjoining or abutting. Member Craig stated that making adjacent mean "nearby" is still interpretive. Attorney Eckman stated that the problem with "adjacent' is that most people think it means "touching." The preferred meaning is "nearby but not necessarily touching." The problem with defining "nearby" is that a distance of a certain number of feet may be appropriate in some circumstances, but not others. Member Craig stated that the problem has not been solved. Planner Shepard stated that we never intended to put a metric to the word. If that is the problem, it cannot be solved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 25 Attorney Eckman stated that staff is striving to establish some criteria to determine what is and what is not nearby for the Spring 2004 changes. Planner Shepard stated that there are probably over 100 different contexts for the word "adjacent" in the Land Use Code. Therefore, for this go -around, we thought we would answer the question as to what the word really means. In terms of going in to the individual standards to attach a metric, that is a different issue. Attorney Eckman stated that there may be some instances in the Code where the word adjacent should be replaced with adjoining or abutting but criteria do need to be established to determine when something is nearby and when it is not. Member Craig asked what the urgency of getting this change made without the whole package being in place. Planner Shepard replied that it would at least solve a semantic argument and keep the improvement process on -going. Attorney Eckman stated that if the Board was not inclined to make that change, the dictionary could always be used to look up "adjacent." Member Craig stated that at this point in time, she could not support this change. Member Schmidt stated that the reason "adjacent' has a lot of meanings is because it depends on the situation in which it is used. She stated that it would help at this point to add the clarity that it does not necessarily mean touching and it does not exclude touching. She stated agreement with the fact that nearby is not any more definitive and added that some kind of noise or other standards should be used. Attorney Eckman stated that nearby is really not a measurement in distance so much as it is an impact -based issue. Member Schmidt asked if it would definitely be a part of the Spring changes. Planner Shepard replied that staff would like to examine each standard that includes the word and determine if it should mean abutting/adjoining or nearby but not necessarily touching. There will at least be a consistent semantic that can be agreed upon. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 26 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated agreement with Member Craig. He proposed adding a definition to adjacent to mean "not necessarily touching." Member Schmidt suggested "having an impact but not necessarily touching." Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council to hold off on the definition of adjacent until staff has had the opportunity to go through the Land Use Code and clarify the definition for the Spring changes. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planner Shepard asked the Board to keep in mind that definitions will not be changed in the Spring, the standards will be individually be changed to more precise language. The motion was approved 4-2, with Chairperson Torgerson and Member Meyer voting in the negative. Chairperson Torgerson stated that item 6-15 would be considered next Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated concern about modifications going to a Type I hearing that have come to the Board in the past. Member Craig stated agreement, adding that modifications are interpretations that are not solely based on a list of criteria. One person making decisions on modifications is inappropriate. She stated that she understood that many applicants feel this is a lengthy process but many modifications have been put on the consent agenda. Planner Shepard stated that the issue may need to be broken down a bit into nominal, or inconsequential, divergences from standard (broadening the criteria) and the other component: to allow modifications as part of Type I Administrative Review. Chairperson Torgerson stated that his opinion is that if staff can be trusted to make a decision on whether or not a project meets the Code, they are certainly qualified to grant modifications based on the intent of the Code. He stated that he would favor this amendment to the Code, especially since we are only looking at minor deviations. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would like to streamline the modification process and have more than one meeting a month. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 27 Chairperson Torgerson stated that he could not think of any way to streamline the process and asked for Director Gloss' thoughts. Director Gloss replied that Paul Zucker's report showed the modification procedure results in projects that are of poorer quality. People are avoiding going to the Board because of the additional time and the perceived unpredictability of the Board. He added that staff believes strongly that this change should be made. Member Meyer stated agreement with Chairperson Torgerson adding that staff is trained to deal with these issues. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that modifications become a problem when it comes down to interpretation between the staff and the applicant. He stated that improving the process will work. Member Colton asked if this would include parking standards. Chairperson Torgerson replied that it is dependent on the type of project, not the type of modification request. Planner Shepard stated that if the Board is reluctant to have the Hearing Officer deal with these, it should look at the ordinance on page 4 that provides criteria. Chairperson Torgerson suggested voting first on giving the Hearing Officer the ability to decide modifications if it is a Type I review. Attorney Eckman clarified the two items — one being what Chairperson Torgerson just stated, and the other being adding a fourth reason to grant modifications. The current three are equal to or better than, hardship, and important community need. The fourth would open it up more to subjective decision making in that it allows determined inconsequential modifications to be granted solely by not being detrimental to the public good. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board be the only authority for modifications and that the language of the Land Use Code be retained to reflect that. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2, with Chairperson Torgerson and Member Meyer voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 28 Member Colton moved for approval of the Land Use Code amendment to add the fourth criteria for granting modification requests, as stated in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Chairperson Torgerson stated that Item 6-25 would be discussed next. Member Craig stated that this item had to do with removing contiguity as a requirement of an ODP. At this point, the Land Use Code says that at least 1/6 of the proposed development's boundaries be contiguous to existing urban development with either the City or unincorporated Larimer County within the Urban Growth Area. Member Craig stated that she does not have a problem with that sentence but with the next one: "if the development is a phase of an Overall Development Plan which complies with the contiguity requirement, and if all portions of this phase are within ''/: mile of existing urban development, then the development phase need not comply with such requirement." She stated that if we exempt ODPs from contiguity, then a PDP can come in and be exempt from contiguity. She suggested changing the language so that if we decided to exempt ODPs from contiguity, then a PDP would have to have contiguity to be developed. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the intent of this was to avoid leapfrog development. Director Gloss replied that was correct. Chairperson Torgerson stated that there will eventually not be a leapfrog possibility within the UGA. Member Craig stated that when City Plan was originally put together, it was very important that development be kept sequential so the infrastructure followed with it. Attorney Eckman stated that the sentence in question was an oversight and does not make sense in the context. If the sentence is deleted, it is only applying to PDPs and they have to be contiguous. Also, Urban Growth Area will be changed to Growth Management Area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 29 Director Gloss agreed with Attorney Eckman stating that PDPs would still have to meet the contiguity standard. He added that ODPs allow us to identify infrastructure issues that are going to come up and where deficiencies are occurring, but they do not provide a vesting of rights. These things can be fine- tuned at the PDP level. Member Colton asked what the implications of having ODP approval are. Planner Shepard replied that a sub -area plan amendment is legislative and Council is free to do what they would like to do. At the time the PDP is submitted, the rules that are in force at the time govern the PDP. Member Colton moved to allow the amendment for ODPs to not have contiguity but to take out the language as Attorney Eckman suggested so it does not imply that a PDP could come in without contiguity. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2, with Chairperson Torgerson and Member Craig voting in the negative. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the Board would now address the remaining Land Use Code changes that were not controversial. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for recommendation to City Council of approval of the Fall Land Use Code items that were not specifically covered and voted upon separately. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig thanked staff for going through with the item for buffers protecting industrial from new residential. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Approved by the Board February 19, 2003.