Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/05/2001Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Meyer and Torgerson. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Grubb, Olt, McCallum, Moore, Jakson, Stringer, Jones, Wilder and Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18, November 16 and December 7, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #3-90H Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final Discussion Agenda: 3. #4-01 Ridgewood Hills Rezoning 4. #1-01 Poudre Development Rezoning 5. #40-98 Cathy Fromme 1st Natural Area Annexation & Zoning 6. #40-98A Cathy Fromme 2"d Natural Area Annexation & Zoning 7. #43-98 Coyote Ridge 1st Annexation & Zoning 8. #43-98A Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation & Zoning 9. #43-98B Coyote Ridge 3`d Annexation & Zoning 10. #43-98C Coyote Ridge 4th Annexation & Zoning 11. #43-98D Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation & Zoning 12. #43-98E Coyote Ridge 6th Annexation & Zoning 13. Referred Minor Amendment to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center. Member Craig pulled Item 2, Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing for discussion. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Item 1, May 18th only. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 2 Project: Project Description: Recommendation: Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final, #3-90H Request for 41 single-family lots on 11.47 acres. The property is in the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and is located east of Seneca Street, north of Wakerobin Lane, and south of the future Troutman Parkway extension. Approval with Standard Engineering Condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig asked Planner Olt to discuss the Board's concerns that were raised at worksession about the possibility of connections from the cul-de-sacs onto Seneca. She asked about the Transportation Department's recommendations. Planner Olt replied that he handed out some items to the Board tonight that reflect Eric Bracke's position. The letter from Eric to the Board is dated 1991 and is 10 years old. At that time there was also a letter from the representative for the developer regarding meetings with the School District and the principles of Webber Junior High and Johnson Elementary School. In terms of crossings across Seneca Street, which separates both of the schools, they felt it was important to direct the pedestrian traffic to the north and the south along Westbrooke Drive; which is internal to the development and take them to future Troutman Parkway to the north and Regency Drive to the south, where they would intersect with Seneca Street. They did not want to encourage pedestrian traffic and the students coming from the neighborhood mid -block between Troutman and Regency Drive and immediately crossing at an unprotected area. That position was stated 10 years ago, and he understands that Transportation Planning has been interested in a pedestrian connection all along. The comment sheets from Transportation Planning, Kathleen Reavis, indicates that they still would like to see pedestrian connections, but they understand the School District and Traffic Operations position regarding. safety. Member Craig referred to the revision comment sheets that were done more recently, December 23, 1999 and May 31, 2000. Kathleen Reavis mentioned that the comments were given verbally at the review meeting. She asked if there was a traffic engineer at the review meeting and if so what was the conversation. E Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 3 Planner Olt did not recall, because the meetings were some time ago, whether there was a traffic engineer or traffic operations representative, he could not speak to that. The last two rounds of review from Transportation Planning do not reflect still wanting those pedestrian connections and movement across Seneca. That happened in October 2000 and February of 2001. Member Craig asked Mark Jackson of the Transportation Department, representing Kathleen Reavis, to give a summary of how this all fit together and what may have happened at those two meetings that they don't have any notes on. Mr. Jackson responded that Planner Olt was accurate in his descriptions. As far as his understanding of those conversations and the debate that took place between Traffic Operations, Current Planning and Transportation Planning, was that the decision was to agree to disagree on the philosophy of this. Ms. Reavis felt it was important to make those connections, but there were agreements or conversations with the school officials that had been done before and had already been in place. In addition, there were the traffic engineers and school officials feelings, which was to not encourage crossings across a collector level roadway and that they would rather have the pedestrians moved to controlled areas. Member Craig asked what the distance was between Troutman and Regency, because those are being determined to be the appropriate crossings. Planner Olt did not have a scale, but assumed that it was about 1,000 to 1,200 feet, approximately 2 blocks or maybe a little longer. Member Craig felt that if the other connections were not put in, they would be discouraging pedestrians coming across and using that area. She wished that there were someone here tonight to tell her that it would be too dangerous. The only information she has on the danger side is 10 years old. She felt that with enhanced crosswalks, maybe it would not be so dangerous now. Jeff Couch, Ballofet & Tranco stated that he had been working on this project for approximately 11 years now. The Overall Development Plan was originally modified and approved in late 1990. He reported that they ran into three barriers when it came to pedestrian connectivity to Seneca. The first and the most significant was the School District, and at one time there were even road connections planned out to Seneca. Because of the heavy bus and pedestrian traffic in that area, they felt they wanted "no" connections. They were very firm about it. As a result of that, they eliminated not only pedestrian connections, but vehicular connections as well. Through the Overall Development Plan, they also had some lots fronting along Seneca, and the reason for that was to break up the streetscape along Seneca Street. They ran into another hurdle Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 4 there because there is no sewer in Seneca and they would have to run sewer along the backs of the lots that were facing Seneca. The city utilities were adamantly opposed to that as well, so they took the lots off of Seneca and created the no pedestrian connections through there. At that time, they also had the support of Traffic Operations for no pedestrian connections. The concern was that they have established crosswalks at Regency and at Troutman and that was enough to provide adequate pedestrian circulation into that area. They used the feedback from those three entities to do the final layout that they have and make the decisions that they did. PUBLIC INPUT. None. Member Colton asked Planner Olt to point out on the map where the crossings at Regency and Troutman were. Planner Olt complied. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there was any attempt to refresh the memos from the School District from 1991. He felt that it was old information and that things have changed over time. He was sure that the District has changed their bus routes. He wondered why we were using old data. Planner Olt responded that no the information had not been refreshed. He was not clear on the relationship of bus routes to the crossings was. We are dealing with a significant collector street from Harmony Road up to Horsetooth Road that is a mile long. It will be a pretty dramatic collector street. He did not feel any circumstances have changed. The schools were there at that time. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the schools opinion was only advisory. Do they have a bearing on what the Board does. Planner Olt replied that they are advisory, he did not think that they have the authority to impose something like that on the city. Chairperson Gavaldon felt things have changed since those memos were written and wondered why the Board did not have refreshed information or the direct parties in here to help them understand. Planner Olt replied that he could not speak to that, staff did not feel the need to because circumstances in our minds have not changed since preliminary. This project was submitted as a PUD back in 1996 and has been lingering on due to necessary street improvements to either Seneca Street to the north to Horsetooth or Troutman Parkway to the east to Shields Street. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Couch added that the traffic study was updated last year and does echo what were the original concerns of the School District. Those were the amount of traffic, school buses, turning movements that are there and the driveway configurations on the school property all lead the School District to their conclusion. The updated traffic study just reinforced their decision even more. They have not gone back to the School Board and asked them to update their letter. Member Craig asked if the raised enhanced crosswalks would be put in at Regency and Troutman. Mr. Couch replied that they would. Member Craig asked about the memo handed out about the condition for approval for this project for the final utility plans and development agreement. She asked why they need a four -month extension. Planner Olt replied that he pulled that out of the air. Typically what we have done in the past is give a one or two month time frame to get the development agreement done. As the Board is well aware, we come to the Board with one extension after another. Staff felt that a four -month time frame seemed realistic for a project like this to get their development agreement done without having to bring it back to the Board in two months for a request for an extension. Member Craig stated that it bothered her because it specifically says in the Land Development Guidance System that developers should not even be bringing anything to the Planning and Zoning Board until they have final utility plans done. Planner Olt replied that we have been operating like this for 10 years and he questioned why the Board has been approving PUD's for years now without having this done. This is nothing new. Member Colton was struggling here because he really wants to encourage porosity. There are so many places in town where you have to walk a mile to go 100 yards. He thought that we were getting a little bit of that here. It is going to be more that just a route to school. It would be a route in the summer to get to a park, a route for parents to get somewhere and he did not like the idea of not doing the connections. He felt there could be other measures that could be done to encourage the children that would be going through there a short logical path. Member Carpenter was also struggling with this. She agreed with Member Colton in theory and principle for the need for walkability. Just knowing kids the way she does; it would worry her to have too many directions to go. She does understand that concern. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 6 While she thinks we need walkability, she felt this was a special case where you have two schools there and to allow a lot of connectors into the schools troubles her. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the variance to Section 29-526. F(5)(b)[1]b, pertaining to the Final Plan being in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Plan, of the LDGS. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Westbrooke PUD, 2"d Filing Final with the standard condition for final utility plans and development agreement. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig asked for a friendly amendment to change the condition date to July 2001. The Board accepted the friendly amendment. Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he does believe in walkable neighborhoods and what ever went on back when this was put together came up short of walkable. He was concerned about the age of the documents and he felt that they should have been refreshed and the Board should have had a traffic report. Member Colton would not be supporting the motion. He felt that walkability is more of an emphasis now that ever. He also felt they should have had updated information. Member Craig agreed with Member Colton and the LDGS Criteria she was looking at was A2.6, Pedestrian Circulation. What does bother her is that Kathleen Reavis, who is our Transportation Planner continued to feel strongly about this and she did not feel like she would put children's safety in jeopardy. She looked at the circumstances and still felt that it was appropriate to ask for the connections. She would not be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 7 Project: Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01 Project Description: Request to rezone Ridgewood Hills PUD, First Filing, and Ridgewood Hills PUD, First Filing Replat from RL, Low Density Residential to LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The site is 14.01 acres and located south and adjacent to Trilby Road, north of County Road 32 between College Avenue and Shields Street. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Grubb handed out minutes from the neighborhood meeting. He stated that the property was a mixed -use neighborhood that is almost developed out except for one tract on the site, which is at the southeast corner of Trilby and Avondale Roads. He stated that staff initiated the request that involves about 60 property owners. The reason for the request is that in 1997, when the citywide rezoning process went on, there was an oversight that occurred. This parcel was developing as mixed -use and should have been zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. What the RL, Low Density Residential zoning did was create some non -conforming uses and limited the existing permitted uses. Planner Grubb stated the purpose of this request was to eliminate the non -conforming uses and allow the undeveloped parcel at the southeast corner of Trilby and Avondale Roads to develop according to a PUD plan that was approved in 1994. Planner Grubb stated that there was a neighborhood meeting which about 25 neighbors attended. The majority of the discussion was how the undeveloped tract may or could develop in the future under the LMN zoning. He stated that the neighborhood was supportive of the rezoning, but hesitant about the rezoning to LMN of the undeveloped parcel because of the uses that could go on that property under the LMN. He stated that there were several letters received and the major concerns were compatibility with the daycare, lighting of the site and traffic. He stated that staff was recommending approval based on the compliance with City Plan and the criteria for approval contained in Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code. Member Craig asked if the property were left in the RL, what would be the consequences of the people living there now? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 8 Planner Grubb replied that there might be some things that may just be an inconvenience and some things that may cause problems. For example if the daycare were to go out of business and remain unoccupied for one year, it would have to become a single family dwelling to be occupied by one family. Member Colton asked to see site shots. Planner Grubb reviewed the site shots for the Board. Member Craig asked who put up the white fence that she noticed in the site shots. Planner Grubb replied the developer, but the Homeowner's Association owns the parcel. Member Craig asked if the HOA Association was maintaining the fence, trees and the berm. Planner Grubb replied he assumed so. Member Carpenter asked for review of the dates that the dwellings were built and what a potential homeowner would have found had they come to the city and asked what that piece of land could have been at the different dates. Planner Grubb replied there were only a hand full of Certificate of Occupancies issued prior to the rezoning in March of 1997. The bulk of the properties were issued CO's after the rezoning took place. Prior to 1997 an inquiry would have been told that the parcel would be a neighborhood convenience site. After the zoning map was adopted in March of 1997, people would have been told RL, because that was the zoning. If the question were what would be allowed there, the answer would have been single family homes. Member Meyer asked if there was anywhere in the community where a daycare and a convenience store co -exist happily. Planner Shepard replied that one example would be across from the Collindale Golf Course on Horsetooth Road. Member Torgerson asked if the original approved PUD showed a convenience store on the site. Planner Grubb replied it did. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 9 Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the rezoning did anything to the approved Overall Development Plan or approved preliminary plan. Planner Grubb replied that they expired in January of 2000. PUBLIC INPUT Lloyd Rowe, representing the Ridgewood Hills Village Homeowner's Association, which oversees the townhomes clarified that the Master Association maintained the trees in the entry area. Ridgewood Hills Village HOA pays a fee to the Master Association yearly to maintain the greenbelt area and the entryway. He stated that the members in the townhome area don't really have an issue with the rezoning, but do have an issue with what may go in there. Most concerns are with traffic in the area. He stated that another convenience center is planned at Trilby and Shields and there is currently another one at Trilby and College and at County Road 32. He stated that County Road 32 would eventually be extended west to connect to Avondale, which will feed into Trilby. Mr. Rowe stated that most residents felt that we do not need a convenience store or gas station and felt that it would ruin the aesthetic beauty of their entryway into their community. Don Wells, homeowner in Ridgewood Hills Village Townhomes asked if the RL zone allowed childcare centers. He did not feel that a rezoning should be done to just allow the childcare center when from what he read in the code, a childcare center would be allowed in the RL zone. He stated that the information he received at the neighborhood meeting was that if Melody Homes did not request the rezoning at this time, this rezoning request would not be processed at this time by the city. He stated that Melody Homes told him that they had no plans to develop the parcel at this time. He was strongly opposed to putting a convenience store there, but is not opposed to a low density professional building. He stated that there are so many things that could be built under the LMN zone that would not be good for their community. Dick Coral, lives immediately west of the childcare center concurred with his neighbors. He stated that they did not need a rezoning and he was also opposed to a convenience store. Frank Skurbetz, homeowner, also agreed with his neighbors. He supported the previous speaker's reasons not to rezone. Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design, representing Melody Homes stated that they concurred with staffs recommendation for approval. She stated that the concerns raised about a gas station or convenience store were not the reason they were here tonight, it was for the rezoning. While a convenience center is a potential use in the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 10 LMN zone, at this time Melody Homes does not have a potential use for the site. She would not be surprised if the traffic study would not allow it anyway. She clarified that at this time they are not proposing a convenience center. Ray Schultz, homeowner, stated that he supported low profile buildings on the site or even additional townhomes which would fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The issue is the broad spectrum of the zoning that they are asking for. He was not sure if there could be limitations. He agreed with his neighbors with what has occurred in the neighborhood to now have a convenience store in place. He saw the need for the rezoning, but did not see a need for a convenience store on that site. Chairperson Gavaldon asked for the question about the daycare center be addressed. Planner Grubb stated that if the childcare center is zoned RL; the childcare center would be a use that would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the LMN zone, it would be a use that would be approved administratively. The other question was would this request be processed if it were not for Melody Homes. His answer would be no, not at this time. This site has already been identified as one where there was a mistake made in 1997. The request would have come forward sooner or later. Melody's desire to have this request heard, expedited the process. Member Carpenter asked if there was a zoning district that could restrict this to a low profile use. Planner Shepard reviewed the LMN District zoning and how it restricted convenience stores with gas or fueling facilities. They cannot be located within % of a mile of another gas station. This site is within % mile of an existing gas station at the corner of College and Trilby. Therefore, there could be no gas at this site if it were rezoned LMN. Member Colton asked what traffic process would be done for this site. Planner Grubb stated that a traffic study would be required at the time of PDP, and staff would review it at that time. His opinion was that this was not a site that would draw a lot of traffic from other areas. There were just not enough trips per day, right now, to warrant that type of a use. It was not going to be a destination use; it really is a use that will benefit the neighborhood. Member Craig asked if the property were zoned LMN, and Melody Homes came in with a proposal for multi -family housing, detached or attached single family, would the Overall Development Plan have to be amended. Planner Grubb replied that the ODP expired January 17, 2000, under Ordinance 161. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 11 Member Colton felt that the LMN zoning district was consistent with what we want out of City Plan with having a mixture of uses. He felt that this was an appropriate zoning in that we need to rely on the neighborhood compatibility and traffic studies to not get too intense of a use there. Member Meyer agreed with Member Colton and felt LMN was an appropriate zone. Member Carpenter agreed, but with information given out that this would be single family, she felt we had an obligation to the homeowner's in the area. She asked if rezoning could be done after a use has been determined. Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design stated that technically they could, but that would be asking Melody Homes to take a fairly large risk. There would be expenses incurred for anyone. Also, the way the city process is set up, as far as review goes, that is usually not the way it goes. You can only come in twice a year for a rezoning, and if you miss that date, you have to wait 6 more months. She felt it just did not seem realistic. Planner Shepard added that we have standards in the code that would deal with issues such as traffic, lighting, hours of operation, etc. He asked to keep in mind that when the code was written, we took all the LDGS performance standards, and added a whole bunch more. Member Craig agreed with Member Carpenter about the predictability here. If the neighbors had come in tonight and asked that the zoning be left RL, she did not hear that from them. She got from them that they did not care about rezoning, but was more concerned about what would go in there. She felt that the next step would be the PDP, where there is a criterion for neighborhood compatibility. Member Bernth asked Mr. Rowe if his primary concern was the gas. Mr. Rowe replied that he is not only speaking as an individual, but on behalf of his HOA. He realized that development is inevitable, but firmly believes that it has to be sensitive to the people within the community. He has seen three maps for Ridgewood Hills and has heard Realtors tell people that the parcel would be single family homes or a greenbelt area. When he bought his.townhome, the builder produced a map that showed a convenience store and some professional office buildings and the daycare site. He bought anyway because he assumed that the city would address it and felt that it would be done tastefully. He felt that people made decisions to invest in that property based on what they were told and that there was three different zoning maps that people could have seen. That is where he thinks the confusion lies. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 12 Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01 based on the criteria that the amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That the amendment to the zoning map was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property because of the oversight. Also, that the zoning proposed amendment was compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; and that the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig thanked the neighbors for coming tonight and she hoped the Board addressed their concerns. She encouraged them to stay in touch with the process when a PDP does come in. She would like their concerns to be addressed, but that could not happen until a development proposal comes in. Member Carpenter would support the motion, and encouraged the neighbors to continue to participate at the PDP level. Member Colton also did not like when erroneous information or multiple types of information goes out when people rely on that to make a decision. He does believe that this was best for the community and does fit with what we are trying to do with City Plan. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Poudre Development Rezoning, #1-01 Project Description: -Request to rezone the Poudre Development parcel from T, Transition, to CCR, Community Commercial River. The parcel is 21.7 acres in size and located on the east side of the Poudre River bounded by Linden Street, Buckingham Street and First Street. Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 13 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this was a continued item from the last Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He stated that staff was recommending approval. He reported that a neighborhood information meeting was held, and the minutes have been distributed. Also, at the request of a Board Member, staff has met with the Natural Resources Advisory Board and discussed this item as well. It was an informal discussion with no formal action taken. The consensus seemed to be that the CCR Zone was appropriate. They talked about future development, flood plain regulations and the commitment to the neighborhood that we made to come back and do additional neighborhood meetings upon the submittal of a Project Development Plan. Tom Peterson, Planner, representing the applicant gave a presentation. As he testified at the last meeting, they agree with the staff recommendation to the Board. He stated that they notified property owners within 1500 feet and not the required 500 feet. They attended the neighborhood meeting last week. At this point in time there are no development plans on this property. It is the intent of the property owners to continue to wash concrete trucks there. At such time that there is some desire to develop the property, the owners have no problem going through the required neighborhood meetings. Public Input Member Craig noticed that on the Structure Plan Map, this property was put down as Downtown District, it was not even counted as Poudre River Corridor. She asked if that was intentional. Planner Shepard replied that the Downtown Plan preceded the Structure Plan. The Downtown Plan designated this area as River Corridor. In fact the River Corridor preceded the Downtown Plan. The evolution was that it was the RC zone based on the Poudre River Corridor, it is part of the Downtown Plan, and it is part of the fringe area of the downtown. The Downtown Plan refers to it as the river corridor area, and the result of the zoning that came out of that was to zone it RC. The result of the City Plan and Structure Plan zoning was to keep referring to it as downtown, because it is part of the Downtown Plan. The Structure Plan then, reflected that sub -area plan. When it came time to recommend a zoning back in 1997, staff looked at the sub -area plan, the River Corridor zone, and that it was incorporated within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, and the CCR zone was the replacement zone for the RC zone. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 14 Member Craig stated that the Structure Plan Map shows this property as Downtown District where as all the other property that was in the Downtown Plan was marked as Poudre River Corridor is shown as Poudre River Corridor. She asked for clarification as to why this particular piece of property on the Structure Plan was not made Poudre River Corridor. Planner Shepard replied he did not know, it did not think it was done in error. He thought what the Downtown Plan says it that this is a fringe area, but it is still downtown. We wanted this to be a fringe supporting land use to support the downtown. The way he reads it was that it is part of the downtown, but a fringe area to offer a supporting function and not compete with downtown. He does not think the Structure Plan is wrong. Member Craig did feel that it was a mistake, and felt the Structure Plan was in error and it should be zoned Poudre River Corridor. Planner Shepard reflected what was discussed last night with the Natural Resources Advisory Board that Ken Waido of the Advanced Planning Department attended. They addressed the Board for about 30 minutes and he could say very clearly, that it is Mr. Waido's opinion that the Structure Plan is not in error. Member Craig felt that the Structure Plan should reflect the property as River Corridor the same as the Link N Greens piece is. It goes nowhere as a Downtown District and it does not even show this property in the Downtown Map. Timothy Wilder, Advanced Planning Department tried to address the question through City Plan. The plan talks about the Downtown District, which includes three different types of areas. One is the Canyon area, the Old Town Areas and then the Poudre River sub -district area of downtown. This property is identified in the Poudre River sub- district, therefore, by extension, this area would be in the Downtown District area, however, the sub -district categorization in City Plan is for that Poudre River sub -area. Planner Wilder stated that this area actually falls under two different areas in City Plan. One is the Downtown District in City Plan, and of that description, the Principles and Policies section. As well as the Poudre River Corridor description as well which this property fall under as well. Member Craig asked if he was telling her that it is in the Policies and Principles, but it is not in the Land Use Code under both of those. In the Land Use Code it shows the Downtown Districts are Canyon Avenue, Old City Center and the Civic Center. It does not show the River Corridor at all. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 15 Planner Wilder responded that was because in the Land Use Code, it is not given a specific district, because it is a zone transition. There was not one applied. He stated that the Downtown District is referring to the description of the Downtown District in City Plan. Member Craig asked if this was the only piece of property that we have to go to the Principles and Policies. She did not remember any other district that they can't go to the Land Use Code and find. Chairperson asked that the hierarchy of the Structure Map be discussed. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he felt that the discussion was headed in the direction of whether the Structure Plan Map is correct, or should it have been drawn differently. In the process of rezoning, you look at your step 8 standards. Is the proposed rezoning in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or are there changed circumstances to justify the rezoning. That is in the Land Use Code. If you have a regulation of general application and another conflicting regulation of local or specific application, first of all you try and reconcile. If you cannot reconcile the two and give effect to both, then the local or specific one trumps the general one and controls. In this case the Downtown Plan is a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Plan is more local and more specific than the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan Map is more general than the Principles and Policies. First you look at the local Downtown Plan and then there would be the Principles and Policies, Structure Plan, then the Vision and Goals. Member Colton stated that there is a map included in their packets that is very specific, that show housing as the desired use on this property. There are also a couple of references in the Downtown Plan where is says that housing is encouraged in specific areas and also to have uses that are compatible with housing. His biggest concern is that this parcel should be an LMN instead of River Corridor. There are uses within the CCR which are more intense than what the Downtown Plan specifies, regarding housing and what they are showing as desired uses, desire to have housing in the downtown area would lead him to believe. Planner Shepard stated that he did not get that majority concept. When he reads the Downtown Plan, every reference to the Poudre River Corridor, for instance under the Letter S, on page 69: "permit destination retail uses, light manufacturing, research and science laboratories, and similar uses in locations within the Poudre River Corridor District." Letter T, on page 70 says: "to encourage the development of a special river front area that mixes hospitality, hotel, recreation, entertainment, culture and some limited retail land uses in the Poudre River Corridor District." Letter U: "encourage new single family detached and attached units, medium density residential uses and elderly Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 16 retirement housing." These appear to him as to being equal. He does not see housing as rising to the surface. Planner Shepard pointed out that if you read the purpose statement in the Land Use Code under LMN, it states that typically low density neighborhoods will be clustered around and intregal with a medium density mixed use neighborhood with a neighborhood commercial center at its core. For the purposes of the LMN division, a neighborhood should be considered to be approximately 80 to 160 acres with its edges typically consisting of major streets, drainageways, etc. Staff does not see these 21 acres, which is surrounded by employment and industrial and RL, to be LMN. It does not have the intregal relationship with MMN and NC. It is not part of the three things, that staff feels that work together intregally. Staff feels that it is a downtown fringe parcel that is designed to support the downtown, not compete with downtown, and offer a mix of land uses. If you read the purpose statement of the CCR, there are specific references to properties in the Cache La Poudre River Corridor area that have both public street and river frontage. That is this parcel. Staff is recommending the CCR district. Member Colton looked at the concept plan, which has land use opportunities and has an H on this property, which is housing. Planner Shepard replied that the map has to be read with the text. The map does not take precedent over the text. Staff feels that it is a mixed -use zone. Member Colton asked what in the zoning would encourage some housing here and not a big commercial type development, which is what the Downtown Plan says, would be a special opportunity for this particular parcel. Planner Shepard replied that zoning does not have that function. The zoning is based on the Downtown Plan, which clearly states that this is a downtown fringe property and it is not an LMN property. The Structure Plan calls for it to be Downtown and the text supports mixed land uses. Housing is allowed. If the question is how can we say that if we allow CCR, how can we prioritize housing over the other permitted uses, he did not feel that we could do that. Member Colton felt that housing was stressed in the Downtown and he believes that it should be LMN because it more encourages a mixture of different types of housing with supportive commercial. He felt that it would be a more appropriate zoning. Planner Shepard replied that staff disagrees. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 17 Member Carpenter asked what was in staffs minds when the Downtown Plan concept map was done which clearly labels it housing. Planner Shepard replied that the concept plan was not meant to be exclusive. If you read the map with the text, you cannot just read the map. The map is accompanied by text. The text clearly calls out for a mix of land uses. The CCR zone is a better zone than the RC. The RC was put on this property to implement the Downtown Plan. The CCR zone is a result of City Plan. Zoning is the implementation tool of sub -area plans. Member Craig still felt like the intent was to take the Buckingham neighborhood and turn it into a neighborhood, so the Buckingham Park would be part of the neighborhood, there would be more housing there, and would have more of a neighborhood feel. Planner Shepard replied that staff has been advised by Advanced Planning that this parcel is a downtown fringe parcel, it is not an extension of the Buckingham residential neighborhood. It is not an LMN parcel. It has a relationship to the downtown and the river and there is only one zone for that and it is CCR. That is staffs opinion. Member Meyer moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Poudre Development Rezoning from T, Transition to CCR, Community Commercial Downtown District. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. If you look at the area as a whole, it could be LMN; there could be a neighborhood center. Advance Planners will admit one of the things lacking is housing and there is already a neighborhood park. She felt this could easily be LMN and connect to the Buckingham neighborhood, which is LMN on the Structure Map. Member Colton would not be supporting the motion either. He felt that the Downtown Plan strongly encourages and desires more housing in this area. Not only in the concept plan, but also in a lot of the language in the document. He felt that the CCR zone allows too many uses that are not consistent with more of a residential feel. He felt it would be more appropriate as LMN. Member Carpenter would not be supporting the motion. When Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Downtown Plan took precedent, she felt there was a conflict between the Land Use Code, City Plan and the Downtown Plan. She felt that the Downtown Plan clearly wants housing on this parcel. Nothing presented tonight has shown her that this was not supposed to be housing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 18 Member Torgerson would be supporting the motion mainly because the CCR district does allow every housing type conceivable. LMN does not restrict the parcel to housing and neither does the CCR. He felt the purpose statement meets this property to a tee, and the LMN purpose statement does not. He felt that CCR was the logical choice. Chairperson Gavaldon had concerns about this. He felt that the Downtown Plan based on the hierarchy does dedicate the parcel to housing. The motion for approval was denied with Members Colton, Craig, Carpenter and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Craig recommend to City Council approval of LMN zoning and that was based on the Downtown Plan which takes precedence. She felt as though the plan wants housing there and she felt that the LMN would give them housing and that we can still get a neighborhood center there. If the Board follows the Downtown Plan, it feels appropriate to zone it LMN. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Meyer would not be supporting the LMN zoning. Planner Shepard stated that there is no LMN zoning next to downtown. There is NCB, NCM and NCL. Those are all the buffering neighborhoods. The downtown is buffered by zone districts that are specifically geared toward buffering downtown and they are not LMN. Member Craig stated that in the LMN zoning, you can have commercial, but it has to be in a neighborhood center. Planner Shepard replied that was true, except if there is already an established LMN neighborhood center within % mile of another LMN zone district. You can do offices, financial and clinics and free standing stand alone uses in the LMN. The motion for LMN zoning was approved 4-3 with Members Meyer, Bernth and Torgerson voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 19 Projects: Cathy Fromme 1st Natural Area Annexation & Zoning, #40-98 Cathy Fromme 2"d Natural Area Annexation & Zoning, #40-98A Coyote Ridge 1st Annexation & Zoning, #43-98 Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation & Zoning, #43-98A Coyote Ridge 3`d Annexation & Zoning, #43-9813 Coyote Ridge 4tn Annexation & Zoning, #43-98C Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation & Zoning, #43-98D Coyote Ridge 6th Annexation & Zoning, #43-98E Project Description: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 237 Acres (Cathy Fromme 1st (81) and 2nd (156) and Coyote Ridge 1,096.5 Acres (Coyote Ridge 1st (2.5), 2"d (181), 3`d (161), 4th (192), 5m (325) and 61n(235). The requested zoning is POL, Public Open Lands. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that the Council Growth Management Committee would be hearing these annexation items on Monday, April 9m He asked the Board to keep in mind that whatever recommendation the Board should make; the Council will have an opportunity to be briefed by the Council Growth Management Committee also before making a decision. Planner Jones stated that the second reason this item was continued from March 15th was to discuss law enforcement issues within the natural area. He thought that all questions regarding that issues were answered at worksession. For the public's benefit, it was discussed that it would not be feasible for the rangers to be deputized. The Natural Resources Department does not want to go that route. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Craig asked for the applicant to state again the justification, or why they want these natural areas annexed into the city. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 20 Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department replied that as it was discussed at worksession, it was a desire for the Natural Resources Department to annex in as many of our properties that are eligible into the city limits as possible. It makes it easier for the rangers to operate under the circumstances, since they are operating under the city ordinances. For backup purposes, they know they will have city law enforcement officers rather than having to rely on the county. Member Craig asked if Coyote Ridge was attached to some county land. Mr. Moore replied that there were some joint purchases with Coyote Ridge with the County. He was not sure how they enforce with their rangers; they do manage their properties differently than ours. We don't have any intergovernmental agreements with the County and to his knowledge non -are planned. He stated that the city would like to keep the properties separated. Member Colton asked for clarification if Cathy Fomme 151 and 2"d are within the UGA. Planner Jones replied that all eight annexations are out of the current UGA. Member Craig wanted a continuance so the items could be addressed properly and Council could address the issues. Mr. Moore asked for a decision from the Board, and felt that Council Growth Management could send their recommendation along side the P & Z Board recommendation, for a decision by City Council. Member Craig moved to recommend denial of Cathy Fromme 13t, Cathy Fromme 2"d, Coyote Ridge 13t, 2"d, 3`d, 4th, 5th and 61h Annexation and Zonings. Member Craig felt there were several issues that were not being addressed. She also had trouble with the flag pole annexation. She did not like natural areas being used to create enclaves. What does that send to county residents when it comes time on the ballot to ask for more money? She felt we were using county residents money to enclave them. The cost of the enclave is too high. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Colton concurred with Member Craig. He felt that we do not fully understand the implications because there has not been a thorough analysis done. He felt it was needed to understand the implications of the enclave. He has not heard enough justification to approve this at this time without an analysis and further direction from Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 21 Council. He felt that we could live with the natural area enforcement that we currently have. The motion for denial was denied 5-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting for the motion. Member Bernth recommended approval of the eight aforementioned annexations with zoning of POL, Public Open Lands. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Carpenter felt it made sense when the city owns the natural areas to have more control and have a better enforcement of regulations. Member Torgerson concurred and added that what was found in a study a year ago was that enclave annexations cost a lot now, but they cost a lot more in the future. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative. Project: Project Description: Recommendation: Referred Minor Amendment to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center Minor Amendment application to change the Rigden Farm ODP, and the Rigden Farm, Filing One PDP. The request is to change some of the permitted uses and the configuration within the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center. Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson excused himself due to a conflict of interest on the project. Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. The project is referred to the Planning and Zoning Board because there is known opposition by a neighbor. Planner Jones reviewed some site shots to illustrate the request. The request is to change the uses of the Neighborhood Center, which includes the Johnson House and the adjacent barn, which were approved as part of the Rigden Farm Filing One with specific uses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 22 The house originally was designated on the approved plan as having a coffee shop, PO boxes, convenience store and a large deck on the eastside of the building. The barn was to have a meeting area, basketball, dance hall and daycare. With the proposed change, the house is now a mixed use dwelling with office and the barn is a meeting area, basketball, dance hall and coffee shop. He stated that staff felt that the request was meeting the criteria within the Land Use Code for neighborhood centers. Member Craig asked how the new proposal meets the criteria of a "neighborhood center". Planner Jones replied that those standards were in the LMN zone district for neighborhood centers. There are 5 categories of criteria for neighborhood centers. • Access to a neighborhood center • Location • Land Use Requirements • Design and Access • Outdoor Spaces Planner Jones read the Land Use requirements, which he thought that Member Craig was referring to in her question. The change is to put in a mixed -use dwelling in the house and since that is one of the uses allowed including an office located in the same building which is also a permitted use. The criteria states that the requirement is to have two uses from the list and those two uses are on the list. Member Craig asked what size the office would be in the house. Vaughn Furness, Jim Sell Design representing the applicant gave a brief presentation. He stated that the office would be approximately % of the house and it is to run the Rigden Farm LLC Homeowner's Association. Public Input Carl Glaser, owner and developer of Parcel F, which is diagonally opposite from the proposed Neighborhood Community Center. He referred to the letter he sent the Board, which was given to them prior to this meeting. He questioned the mixed -use dwelling and he thought that it would have something of greater variety than an office. The residence was always intended to have an office for the management of Rigden Farm. To make it into a residence that is going to be a private residence for the caretaker and a wife that would be the social director makes it a private configuration. All of the marketing drawings that were presented by Rigden Farm in his purchase of his parcel indicated a very lively, interactive space with banners and lights and umbrellas and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 23 decks and patios where there would be the ability for the homeowners to come together and participate. Now this use is being crammed into the barn, which is less that 1,500 s.f., and within the barn there would be both basketball and a coffee shop. He didn't feel that it was big enough to play basketball or have a dance or to even have a homeowner's association meeting. They are trying to put too much into too small of a space. Mr. Glaser stated that he supported what Rigden Farm is doing for the most part. He paid more to be in Rigden Farm because of the Master Plan, because of the sculpture they are putting in the entryway and because of the lantern lighting they have throughout and because of the neighborhood center. Mr. Glaser felt that they should be congratulated for putting together a very fine development in our community, but do we need to give them special consideration for doing what they said they would do. The signatures of the landowners are of no consequence, why, because he believes the signatures were obtained with incomplete disclosures to the landowners. It was his understanding that most of the signatures were obtained without really seeing what the plan would be for the barn and how confined two incompatible uses would be. Second, he felt the truly affected parties were not here tonight. They would be the people who are buying the condominiums, and the homes that are being built in Rigden Farm. Those are the people he felt were being shortchanged. He has done some cursory review to find that there are numerous ways that we can instill community pride, activities within the community without having to have a landmark devoted to a private residence. It is in a prominent location and it is and will probably remain the most prominent building in the residential portion of Rigden Farm. To make it a private residence for the most part, would be terribly unfortunate. It needs to have access to the community as per the original plan. There is no dispute in his mind that this project is a change in character. Will the outside of the house look the same, yes for the most part, although they have decreased the exterior space by 57%. The exterior of the house would look the same, but the exterior character is going to be greatly changed because now it is going to become a private residence as opposed to a congregating place, a meeting place, a place of vitality. Fred Croce, one of five owners of the Rigden Farm LLC stated that three years ago when they set out to develop Rigden Farm, they were the first to go under City Plan. Things have changed, some of the things they decided to do back then, they have in retrospect looked back and thought they may have made some error in their judgement at that time. One of those has to do with comments that they have gotten from Historic Preservation. One of the things they asked them to do initially, was to try to keep the house a house. Calvin Johnson's family was raised there and there were some Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 24 emotional issues from the Johnson side of things and they would like them to keep the house a residence. In essence they are trying to go back to that tradition. Rigden Farm was setup to comprise a mix of single family and multi -family residences in a multitude of price ranges along with complimentary commercial uses centered around the relocated Johnson Farm Homestead Community Center formally located at Drake and Timberline. Rigden Farm spent about $300,000 relocating the homestead to its current location. Residents should be able to walk out their front door and feel like they are stepping back to a simpler friendlier time. Single and multi family home communities with their own identities will be linked in Rigden Farm by a series of sidewalks, trails and networks of tree lined streets. Rigden Farm is a nice place to live. The historic Johnson Farm Homestead, the Community Center, Coffee Shop and a place for the community to gather is exactly what they are doing at this time. As Mr. Glaser stated they are in fact changing a little bit of the use, but they are not changing the use as much as they are relocating the uses. They are taking some of the use and relocating it out to where the barn is currently. He mentioned a reduction of 57% in the outside area of the house. That is false. That area has been relocated over near the barn. On the eastside of the barn, they are putting in a large patio so parents can go to the barn and get a cup of coffee, sit out on the patio which overlooks the children's playground area. They think that makes more sense. They have chosen to get rid of the gang mailboxes because they did not want to cause all the congestion at the community center where kids are going to be playing and people will have their community gardens. All of the buildings are still designated, with the exception of the house and the garage as Community Center, open to the public buildings. The house will still be open to the HOA members. Public Input Closed Member Colton asked what the criteria were for judging a minor amendment like this. Planner Jones replied that in Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code it talks about amendments to approved plans. Item A in that Section talks about minor amendments and item B talks about major amendments. Minor amendments stated that any change to an approved development plan or site specific plan basically could be amended through this minor amendment process. There are four items that need to be satisfied, that minor amendment would result in an increase or decrease by 1 % or less in the approved number of dwelling units - that the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage in a non-residential structure that does not change the character of the project that the minor amendment results in change in the housing mix ratio Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 25 • that minor amendment results in the change in character of the development. A major amendment would be any type of amendment that does not qualify as a minor amendment. A major amendment would go to the Planning and Zoning Board and it would be very similar to what they are seeing tonight, but it would have a different title on the staff report. It would be the same set of issues before the Board. Planner Jones stated that Mr. Glaser had brought up the issue of change in character of the development and that was a judgement call by the Board. Staff feels that physically it is not a change in character and can be processed by a minor amendment. Member Craig felt this may be a major amendment for a change in character because she does not view a neighborhood center with house with a fence all the way around it and gates, etc. Even though they are calling it a mixed -use center, they are gating and fencing it so it is no longer part of the neighborhood center. Planner Jones restated that it was up to the Board to determine. Staff feels that the criteria for a neighborhood center in the LMN zoning district are being satisfied. Member Colton asked about the convenience store element and was it being dropped. Mr. Furness replied that in the original plan the convenience store would have been part of the coffee shop with just some convenience items for the local residents. The intent was to move that with the coffee shop and just have a little cart with convenience items. Member Colton stated that Mr. Glaser had a point that he had seen this picture with the house with umbrellas on the deck and people out having coffee and maybe could be interpreted as a change in character. Mr. Furness responded that again it goes back to the LPC and that they were not very happy with umbrellas and things out on the deck. Their recommendation was that if at all possible, they preferred them not to add on extensive decks with umbrellas. Planner Jones stated that Karen McWilliams of the Historic Preservation office reviewed the request and commented that they would like to see a more residential use in the house and not commercial. She did not speak on behalf of the LPC. Member Craig asked if there would be seating and tables. Mr. Furness replied there would be. Member Craig asked about the parking area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 26 Planner Jones replied that since the mailboxes were taken out, you could now park a car and get out there. The city also requires parking for the office. Member Bernth moved for approval of the change to the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. She felt this was a change in the character of the development. Member Colton also would not be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative. Member Bernth moved for approval of the change to the Rigden Farm Filing One Project Development Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.