Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/15/1998[l L J Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 Vice Chair: Sally Craig Phone: (H) 484-9417 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Colton. Present: Vice -chair Glen Colton, Bob Davidson, Jennifer Carpenter, Sally Craig, and Jerry Gavaldon. Not present: Karen Weitkunat Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Ludwig, Blandford, Schlueter, Gordon, Shoemaker, Mapes, Vosburg, Barnes and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the August 20, September 3, and September 17 (Continued), 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #50-91C Evergreen Park, Lots 4 & 5, The Toy Shed Storage - Project Development Plan. 3. 113 Hickory Street - Project Development Plan 4. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 5. Resolution PZ98-19 Easement Vacation 6. Resolution PZ98-20 Easement Vacation 7. Resolution PZ98-21 Easement Vacation 8. Resolution PZ98-22 Easement Vacation 9. Resolution PZ98-23 Easement Vacation 10. Resolution PZ98-24 Easement Vacation 11. Resolution PZ98-25 Easement Vacation 12. Resolution PZ98-26 Easement Vacation Discussion: 13. #34-97 Lemay Avenue 3rd Annexation & Zoning 14. #55-95Q Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Fall 1998 Land Use Code Maintenance Ordinance. Mr. Gavaldon requested that item No. 2, the Toy Shed, be pulled for discussion. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 2 Moved by Mr. Gavaldon, seconded by Ms. Craig: To approve items 1-12, excluding the 9/17/98 minutes, and item No. 2, Toy Shed, which would be pulled from the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Project: Evergreen Park, Lots 4 & 5, The Toy Shed Storage - Project Development Plan, #50-91C Project Description: Request for a 6,000 s.f., one-story steel canopy addition with 13 additional pull-thru and vehicle storage facility on .96 acre; located on the east side of Redcedar Circle between Conifer Street and Bristlecone Drive. The property is zoned I, Industrial. Recommendation: Approval of the modification request and approval of the Project Development Plan. Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Mr. Gavaldon asked to address concerns received by the Planning and Zoning Board at their work session. The project is a storage area for recreational vehicles, trailers, etc. and is located on Red Cedar. The action being taken by the Planning and Zoning Board concerns the southern part of the property and the illegal additions on that section of the project. The main entrance modification request will have the storage area set back 20 feet. Plans are for five feet of landscaping with a solid fence on the street side of the project, with additional fencing being planned inside this perimeter. Staff interpretation of the project, including the fencing and the landscaping, is that it is equal to or better than requirements. There is a large drive -through carport on the southern part of the property. The carport and the storage unit south of the carport were built without a permit. The carport is large enough for recreational vehicles and trailers. Staff informed the Board that although the carport and storage lot were added illegally, they would have met the Code requirements of the Planning and Zoning Board. A letter from an adjoining property owner was received by staff regarding a concern that the project was not meeting the Code requirements under the Land Use Code. Ms. Craig asked for clarification as to the location of the neighboring owners' property and the fencing proposed. The neighbors are situated to the northwest portion of the Planning and Zoning Board 0 • Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 3 property; the fencing will be on the street front of the project. The fence will be moved back five feet from the sidewalk. The owner of the project was called forward to verify fencing placement. Property owner Jerry Russell clarified that the solid fencing was along the street front. The property to the south presently is divided by a solid fence; the land to the north is an interior lot and is not owned by the project. The north boundary consists of a chain link fence. Mr. Davidson questioned the compliance of the carport and storage lot. Staff reiterated that the project meets or exceeds present Code requirements even though the review process was bypassed. Paving is not required in interior lots. Chairperson Colton requested input from the authors of the letter addressing the concern for the project. They were not present and no public input was given. Moved by Mr. Gavaldon, seconded by Mr. Davidson: To approve item No. 2, No. 50-91C, commonly known as the Evergreen Park Toy Shed Storage project development plan. The Board gave their appreciation to the staff for the good verbal and visual presentation. Motion approved unanimously. • Project: Lemay Avenue 3rd Annexation & Zoning, #34-97 Project Description: Request for involuntary annexation and zoning of an enclave area approximately 1.7 acres in size. Located on the east side of North Lemay Avenue, between East Lincoln Avenue and East Vine Drive. The proposed zoning for the property is LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning as LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: This is an involuntary annexation of an enclave area consisting of approximately two acres on the east side of North Lemay Avenue between East Lincoln and East Vine. The site is commonly known as the area where the Lemay bypass will take an easterly direction. The zoning proposed is LMN: low density, mixed neighborhood. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 4 The property is currently vacant. The existing zoning under the County is industrial. Staff explained that after an enclave has been formed and is completely surrounded by City property for three years, the City has the right to annex the property. Mr. Gavaldon pointed out that the bypass will cut into a comer of the property. Staff explained the zoning next to the proposed bypass is appropriate due to the proximity to Andersonville and the future alignment with Lemay. Mr. Colton questioned the Structure Plan and boundary along the extension of Buckingham and was advised the zoning is industrial. Staff explained the zoning proposal is a general guideline with fluid boundaries. If boundaries flow along a natural element, the zoning proposal would be interpreted literally. The principles and policies of the City Plan find that there are not significant changes to warrant an amendment on this piece of property. Staff interpreted the LMN zoning to be appropriate when following the Lemay bypass alignment rather than considering it as an extension of Buckingham. The owner of the property in his presentation questioned the surrounding industrial zonings. He informed the Board that the issue of annexation and rezoning had been ongoing since January with an original letter from the City notifying him of annexation of enclaves, including the proposed zoning to be industrial. The owner also stated he has a pending contract for the sale of the property as industrially zoned. He was of the opinion that the zoning should remain industrial, which is how he purchased the property. His position was he felt there was a definite separateness of the area regarding the residential by Buckingham Street. The city property located to the north and to the west of this parcel is currently zoned industrial, together with the property on the east side of the proposed bypass. The owner informed the Board that there was a twenty -foot parcel of land directly to the north of his property which further separates the property from residential. Staff informed the Board when questioned that this parcel is zoned RL, is not owned by the City, and is not an easement for widening the street. The easement is located north of this twenty -foot intervening parcel. The property owner was informed that monetary gains and losses on a piece of property were not criteria considered at this level. The Board asked the City Attorney to address the issue of liability of zoning issues in the City Plan and was informed there was no liability for a change in zoning, when such zoning proposal is for the good of the municipality. The zoning is recommended to be LMN: low density, mixed use. The existing zoning under the County plan is industrial. Staff recommended annexation as LMN zoning due Planning and Zoning Board 0 • Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 5 • to the residential area north of the property as an extension of Buckingham. The anticipated alignment of a bypass will take part of the property. Staff agreed with LMN zoning due to proximity with Andersonville. Mr. Blanchard agreed that the parcel was originally proposed to be annexed industrial. After consideration of the Lemay bypass, the zoning was changed to LMN. This change in zoning proposal from industrial to LMN was made in-house following discussion at management level after recognizing the non -consideration of the bypass. The property was presented at a work session as proposing industrial zoning. Following the work session and at management level after discussions with staff, the zoning was changed to LMN. Moved by Mr. Gavaldon, seconded by Ms. Craig: To annex the property zoned LMN upon staffs recommendation of the appropriateness of the zoning code considering the bypass and residential area to the north. Discussion followed that the LMN zone is inclusive zoning for property to be economically lucrative and will be an appropriate buffer for the neighborhood areas. Vote: Gavaldon, yes; Davidson, no; Craig, yes; Colton, yes; Carpenter, yes. Motion passed. • Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Fall 1998 Land Use Code Maintenance Ordinance, #55-95Q Project Description: Request for the Board to make a recommendation to City Council regarding revisions to the Land Use Code that have been identified for inclusion in the proposed Fall 1998 Land Use Code Maintenance Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board recommend to Council that the proposed Land Use Code Revisions be adopted as proposed. Tom Vosburg, Community Planning and Environmental services, explained to the Board that revisions in the Fall 1998 Land Use Code Maintenance Ordinance were broken down into (a) discussion issues and (b) consent items. Consent items would be minor technical refinements and a clarification of the application of the Code. Discussion items are those raised by City boards and/or commissions as to possible changes identified throughout the year, representing significant new standards or a change in the intent and affect to requirements or a change in permitted uses identified • in Land Use Code. Listed for discussion are (1) buffer zones and (2) parking stall dimension proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 6 Buffer zones: Concerns have been expressed by the Natural Resources Board and the Planning and Zoning Board about the existing natural areas along the river. The proposed revisions provide clearer definition of buffer zones by including a table relating to buffer distances. Most of the ranges on the table are from 100 feet to 300 feet, although some are greater and some are lesser. Mr. Davidson questioned the south bank of the Poudre from Lincoln Avenue to College and the area between Linden Avenue and Lincoln. The area is the location of Ranchway Feeds and is currently zoned RDR, Downtown River Redevelopment, and is exempted from the Code requirements for buffer zones. As this area is presently being used, there is not the opportunity to provide for a natural area buffer. Staff explained that RDR has different river bank requirements and contains specific recommendations for river development with customized standards, recognizing that this key section of the river has the potential to being developed for urban use at some time. Staff acknowledges that this matter will not be presented to the Natural Resources Board prior to being submitted to the City Council. Mr. Colton suggested that a change in the wording be that the area read "Linden" instead of College. Staff agreed to this wording change. Mr. Davidson requested clarification on buffer distances, and staff agreed that the intent is a horizontal distance and wording will be adjusted for this intent. Mr. Gavaldon questions a process issue on the buffer table which includes a 200 foot buffer. He questioned the readiness of documents to be presented to City Council without having been discussed at P&Z work sessions. Mr. Gavaldon was of the opinion that the Natural Resources Board should have input prior to City recommendation. He acknowledged that the document was well prepared but was of the opinion it could be better presented. Mr. Gavaldon recognized that if the item is not recommended at this P&Z meeting, that it will be put off until spring, which would not desirable. He would support a recommendation to City Council at this time but did not agree with the inserted table on buffer distances in that it defeated any flexibility within the Code. Council expressed approval of the buffer zones discussion item. No. 2 Composting facility The Board requested that item No. 2, composting facility, be discussed. The purpose was to add composting facilities as permitted uses which was not currently provided for in the Land Use Code. Staff recommended to add these permitted uses to POL, RCC, E and I under Type I review; permitted in C under Type 11 review. Also Planning and Zoning Board • Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 7 included are regulations to govern the operations of the facilities, requirements for engineering studies and nuisance issue studies. Susie Gordon of the Natural Resources Department presented information that there is presently public land available that would benefit from composting use. By leasing these public lands for composting, there would be a review of the lease by the Natural Resources Board, subject to the Land Use Code, and finally review by the City Council. Staff recommended that the composting be done by means of sub -contracting and leasing space on public lands. The definition in the Code currently makes no reference to for profit or public operation. It only speaks to the material and methods of composting. The phrase "composting facility" was used in the proposed language, therefore, not restricting it to a commercial facility. The proposal was for 1000 cubic yards for a composting facility. The intent was to incorporate the language of a composting facility on a smaller scale, such as those used by nurseries and landscape operators for their own benefit. Mr. Davidson requested that the issues of location, odors, rodents, insects and adjacent neighborhoods be considered in the composting location. iCouncil expressed approval of the composting facilities. Item No. 3. Recommend with no discussion. Item No. 4, Perimeter garage standards. This issue has been raised by the P&Z Board concerning the original issue of long, blank back walls of garages facing neighborhoods and/or entrances to living units. The item was brought for discussion to recommend future regulations for garage design standards. Staff presented their report to limit perimeter garages to a maximum length; to provide doors in the back of a building if facing residences and a change in the plane and/or materials of the perimeter wall. Mr. Davidson indicated a problem with the proposed minimum offset of 4 to 6 inches and asked if a ratio should be applied depending on the depth of the garage. Staff information was that depth was not addressed in the regulations. Mr. Davidson also asked for clarification as to the proposed seven feet of landscaping between the buildings. Staff felt that landscaping standards have been adequately addressed within the Code. The Homebuilders Association has been notified of the meeting to discuss this item but • were not present. They expressed to staff a desire to review and participate in discussions. They were concerned over the entire initiative for garage standards. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of October 15, 1998 Page 8 Staff reminded the Board that it was the Board's prerogative to frame their recommendation to City Council. Board member Carpenter stated that if there was a choice between putting the item on hold or going forward, she would prefer the recommendation at this time. Board member Gavaldon would like the Homebuilders Association input before recommending to Council, suggesting that the item be revisited for spring recommendation. The existing Code has no specific standards for length of perimeter garages at this time. Board member Craig expressed that the item had previously been continued and she would like the matter to go forward, suggesting that the Homebuilders Association could attend the next City Council meeting. Board member Davidson would like to use 44 feet as the proposed length of a perimeter garage with 55 feet approved upon request for handicap spaces. He suggested 6 inches as the minimum requirement for change in plane. Staff admitted their concern regarding garage standards was considered minor and questioned if perimeter garage issues were moot due to Land Use Code requirements at present, which would disallow the concept. Mr. Colton expressed a desire to move forward with recommended changes in the wording for a 44-foot maximum length unless exempted for handicap reasons. In that event, the maximum length would be 55 feet. The minimum requirement for a change in plane to be 6 inches. Through informal vote, there were four yes votes to recommend to City Council; Mr. Gavaldon votes no on the recommendation with changes in the wording. No. 5, recommend without discussion. No. 6, recommend without discussion. No. 7, recommend without discussion. Consent Items: Motion by Mr. Gavaldon, seconded by Ms. Carpenter: To approve recommendation to City Council regarding Fall 1998 Land Use Code Maintenance and with all associated comments. Ms. Craig expressed appreciation to the staff for time spent on the P&Z concerns. Other Board members echoed their appreciation. Motion passed unanimously. There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.