Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/25/1996• 0 edy m4jz . Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3415 Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Gaveldon, Byrne, Chapman, Colton, Davidson, Weitkunat, Bell Staff Present: Ludwig, Olt, Wamhoff, Jones, Haas, Duval, Blanchard, Deines. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning Reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda's, which consisted of the following: 1. Minutes of the May 20 and October 29, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #26-96 Cornerstone Presbyterian Church PUD - Preliminary and Final. 3. #52-85C Autoplus Superstore PUD - Preliminary and Final. 4. #28-96 Family Chiropractic Center PUD - Preliminary and Final 5. #2-94H Fire Station #12 - Falcon Ridge PUD, Lots 15 -17 - Amended Final 6. #2-96A University Center PUD - Final (Continued) 7. #14-88N Silver Oaks paired Housing PUD, Subdivision Replat (Lots 1-10, Tract "C" & Tract "D"). 8. Resolution PZ96-15 Abandonment of PUD on Lot 2 of The Third Amendment to Troutman PUD, Second Filing 9. Resolution PZ96-16 Easement Vacation 10. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 11. Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village - Annexation and Zoning 12. REA - Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 13. Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of The Level of Service Manual and Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (Continued) Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 2 Director Blanchard pulled item 12, REA Annexation for discussion. Jerry Quinn, citizen pulled item 11, Good Samaritan Village Annexation and Zoning for discussion. Member Byrne pulled item 3, Autoplus Superstore for discussion. Member Byrne moved to approve the consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 including the variance on item 4. Member Gaveidon seconded the motion. The Motion was approved 7-0. AUTOPLUS SUPERSTORE P.U.D.. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #52-85C. Member Byrne stated that he had a list of questions on the project to be answered. Member Byrne asked about the point chart, the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart, and could some background be provided. He was concerned about the points scored and would like them explained. Mitch Haas, City Planner explained that the intention of the point chart is to decide if the location of the use is appropriate and in the LDGS, the only locational criteria is the point charts. The project is scored against this particular point chart (Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart) because it is car sales and it is one of the defined uses for this point chart. Mr. Haas explained that there have been projects that have needed variances from these point charts, so while it may seem easy, it is just the function of this location with the given use. Member Byrne asked about Item C on Non -Arterial, because it appears that the site is on an arteria street, College Avenue. Planner Haas explained that the Criteria as it reads asks if the primary access to the activity from a non -arterial street. The two access drives to this site come off of Creger Drive, which is a drive that comes off of College. It does not have direct access onto College and there is no curb -cuts onto College Avenue. Member Byrne asked if it was possible to get to this site off of College? • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 3 Planner Haas replied yes. The turn movement at Creger is a three quarter intersection and you can make a left turn off of College onto Creger, but cannot make a left off of Creger onto College. You cannot directly get into the site off of College. Member Byrne felt that it was somewhat of a stretch giving points for that criteria. Planner Haas responded that the intention of the points for this criteria is to minimize curb -cuts onto College Avenue and that the curb -cuts come off of other streets. That is how it has consistently been applied. Chairperson Bell asked if this was an expansion of the Foothills Chrysler that is already there and could you enter this site from the entrance at Bockman Drive and College. Planner Haas replied you could get in from internally circulating through the Foothills site. It is the same ownership, however it is two separate businesses. Member Byrne asked about Superstore Guidelines applying to this project. He also had questions regarding transit stops and was this development meeting the guidelines • for that criteria. Planner Haas replied that for this application we could not review it against the Superstore Standards. As far as transit, there is a bus stop locally nearby. However, as far as turnoffs off of College, we agree that it is a good principle to get the buses out of the flowing traffic lanes, we again do not have a requirement that we can apply to this type of use to build something to that effect. The site is located near an existing transit stop. Member Byrne asked if there were plans to better accommodate bus service along College Avenue as far as pull-outs for buses. Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering Department replied that the The Level of Service Criteria in the traffic impact analysis information does include a level of service analysis for transit. In looking at the information, the projects that come before us will include the information in their traffic studies in the future when that policy is adopted. They are looking at getting developments that trigger those improvements for transit to build pull- outs, provide bus stops or provide those things as mitigation for traffic impacts that they have created. Member Byrne asked if the new street standards apply to this projects. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Ashbeck replied no, that this is an existing development that is just getting a change of use. Ms. Ashbeck added that all the improvements are in in terms of curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and utilities. Member Byrne asked as South College Avenue has some redevelopment in the future, at what point do we trigger some of these improvements. If no one ever pays for them, they will never get done if we don't make them requirements. Director Blanchard added that as part of City Plan and the Master Street Plan, there is anticipation that Mason Street will take over as the major multi -model corridor with a number of projects. Transit with proximity to the rail line, bicycle, pedestrian to get some of the traffic off of College so College does become a major thoroughfare for automobile traffic. That is in the future and does not relate to this project. Member Byrne asked about the landscape plan for this project and asked to see a slide of that plan. Member Byrne asked to be pointed out what is existing and what would be new. Planner Haas responded by showing a slide of the landscape plan. He explained the existing landscaping and stated that the fruit bearing trees would be replaced. All of the landscaping along College Avenue and along Creger is all newly proposed with this project, as well as four landscape islands, and with those islands, a new pedestrian connection from the College Avenue sidewalk, which is a detached walk, heads directly to the front door of the building. From Creger, a similar connection is being made to the front plaza area of the building. The sidewalk on Creger will be detached instead of attached, as it currently is, and the sidewalk on College will be 2 feet wider. Member Colton asked what caliper of trees will be replaced by the trees being taken out. Planner Haas replied the trees currently there are not of any significant caliper. The City Forester has reviewed the plans and is in concurrence with the replacement. The fruit bearing trees tend to leave quite a bit of debris on the ground around them. Planner Haas replied that the replacement trees will be of the same caliper of trees that is currently out there. Member Gaveldon asked what the motivation was to replace the fruit bearing trees? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 5 Planner Haas replied that the fruit will fall on the cars on display and would require more washing of the cars. Member Gaveldon asked to see on the site plan which of the trees were fruit bearing and being taken out. Planner Haas reviewed the trees being taken out. Member Byrne commented on his views about flag poles and large flags at car dealerships. He asked if there would be a flag at this dealership. Planner Haas replied that there is a flagpole existing on the dealership to the south, this proposal does not include a flagpole. If they do want to add on, they would have to come back through the planning office to apply for it through the administrative change process. Greg Fisher, Consultant for the project stated that their intention at this point is to not put a flag on the site. The owner has not mentioned it to him that it was his desire to do • that. Chairperson asked about Item B on the point chart, "part of a planned center". How does this become part of a planned center according to the definition. Planner Haas replied that the adjacent uses are all considered part of the center. The car dealership to the south, the movie theater, the uses to the south of the car dealer as well does share an access drive and parking with one of those uses, as well as with the other dealership. Chairperson Bell asked according to the definition, was this area considered a shopping center. Planner Haas replied that it was not a traditional sense of a shopping center, but it is contiguous and functional to a center. Member Byrne moved for approval of Item 3, Autoplus Superstore PUD Preliminary and Final. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. • Chairperson Bell asked if staff felt that we were getting a good mix and adequate amount of landscaping on this project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 6 Planner Haas replied that staffs feeling was that the landscaping additions were fairly generous, everything we hoped for was put on the plan so the whole frontage along College will be landscaped as well as Creger's. The motion was approved 7-0. • • 1 • • -FT— r,71 -rt[ Ti1'tllI'L•TL Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Quinn, who pulled this item, to come down explain his concerns. Mr. Quinn, President of Skyview Homeowners Association asked the Board to refer to a letter he presented on behalf of the HOA. Mr. Quinn asked the Board to look at the two bullet points at the bottom of the letter. Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Quinn if he was here on behalf of his Homeowner's Association that the City of Fort Collins take over the rest of Constellation Drive as part of this annexation. Mr. Quinn believes that there is justification for the additional 265 feet to be added to the 960 feet on Constellation Drive. It will allow for two entities with congruent road standards to maintain that road, which is relatively short anyway and with the increased traffic flow from the Ridgewood Hills Development. Chairperson Bell asked Assistant City Attorney Duval what the City's Policy is on this matter. Mr. Duval replied that it would be more appropriate to ask what the Planners recommendation was on the matter. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave a brief staff presentation on the project. He explained that the current agreement with the County is that we will annex right-of-way that is adjacent to the property being annexed. Trilby Road is already in the City limits along this portion. On Constellation Drive, the annexation stops at the north property line and therefore, the right of way would end at that point as far as City maintenance. The area Mr. Quinn is referring to is from the property line of this annexation north to Galaxy Lane. In order for this portion of the right-of-way to be annexed, the property adjacent to the road in that area would have to be annexed. Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Ludwig to show the Board the drive-thru traffic Mr. Quinn is referring to. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Ludwig located Ridgewood Hills on the map. He explained that Avendale Road, which goes into Ridgewood Hills is right across Trilby to Constellation Drive. Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Ludwig to explain the agreement the City has with the County. Mr. Ludwig replied that we have "stated to, and agreed with" the County Engineer that we will annex all right-of-way adjacent to a property being annexed into the City. Member Davidson asked if you were to follow Constellation north, does it take you anywhere other than Skyview Acres? Mr. Ludwig replied that you would follow the roads to Skyway Drive, which will take you to 287. Mr. Ludwig added that he did not doubt that there is some cut -through traffic, but he believes the majority of the traffic from Ridgewood Hills goes to Trilby Road and to a lighted traffic signal at Trilby and College Avenue. • Member Davidson asked if all the developments north of this annexation were in the County. Mr. Ludwig replied that was correct. The only portion of the property that is adjacent to City Limits is the southern boundary. The property gains its 1/6 contiguity being adjacent to Trilby Road. Member Byrne asked if the reason Mr. Quinn is interested in getting a segment of additional right-of-way annexed because of maintenance. In terms of maintenance standards, is it true that the City standards are higher. Mr. Ludwig replied that the City's design standards would be that there would be very little maintenance on the roads at this time. When the development proposal is reviewed, if the annexation goes through, there will be a traffic study submitted that would identify how many vehicles were going up Constellation Drive and if improvements were needed to the road at that time, we will be able to require mitigation at that time. Member Byrne asked Mr. Quinn if the motivation was maintenance. Mr. Quinn replied that the roads are in disrepair. Constellation Drive, as a result of the • Ridgewood Hills subdivision, and now this proposed development will experience heavier traffic. The did do a traffic study locally, and they have identified that the traffic Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 8 has increased roughly 50% day to day. It is not just passenger vehicles, but they have construction traffic coming in to help build Ridgewood Hills homes. Their concern is that their streets are already in bad repair, and their streets have not been accepted by the County. They have plenty of work on their hands without any additional traffic. They have taken pro -active measures to limit traffic. Member Byrne asked if the Homeowners Association currently has responsibility for the maintenance on the streets. a Mr. Quinn replied yes. Member Byrne asked if the City of Fort Collins were to annex, then the responsibility would become that of the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Quinn replied that there is currently discussions with the County to accept their streets. The County will be working with them to develop a plan to bring these streets up to just maintain them. They are coming to a point of agreement with the County where they will accept the streets for maintenance. Member Gaveldon asked if they are private streets. Mr. Quinn replied no, these are public streets and they have no authority to close them off. Mr. Ludwig added that they are public streets and they are privately maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Quinn stated that these problems have existed from the start of this development when the development was released that the County is working with them on. It is only a matter of time before the County will accept these streets for maintenance. Member Chapman asked if this street were to be annex into the City, would the City anticipate that at some time it would be brought up to a City standard. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department replied that the City would not bring it up to City standards. Mr. Ludwig added that there would be very limited maintenance. The City is not going to go in and widen or pave the street as a result of the annexation. What will occur is that as development occurs on the property, they will be required to submit a traffic study, which will identify their impacts and improvements will be based on that traffic Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 9 study. Member Weitkunat asked if Mr.Quinn's proposal is above and beyond what is being presented to the Board and is not part of this proposal. Mr. Ludwig replied that was correct. PUBLIC INPUT Al Biscellia, lives in Fort Collins in the County stated that they live in Skyway and it is a street and a section of the City that is an "outcast". The County doesn't want it and the City doesn't want it. Half of the development has not been approved by the County, south of Constellation. It costs the homeowners south of Constellation $6,000 a piece to fix the streets. The streets are very bad and he is against this if any part of this annexation comes onto Constellation. He has heard too many excuses over the past 18 years. Mr. Biscellia stated that they do not need anymore traffic in the area. The question is not having the traffic there and who is going to maintain the streets. He feels that if the City takes in part of Constellation, they should be responsible for all of • Constellation. He feels that the people in Good Samaritan will not use Trilby, they will use Constellation, and he urged the Board not to annex this property with the conditions that are there now. Rowland Brownlee, lives on the corner of Constellation and Galaxy Way. He stated that we are talking about 290 feet that will be homeowners. The City will have the other two and a half blocks to Trilby and the County will have maintenance from there to Skyway. We will have three entities in charge of that street. They have been trying to work out the problems where the developer never finished up. The streets are deteriorating and there are drainage problems now, and this development will only make them worse. He feels there will be more traffic on Constellation and it will only add to the additional traffic they have now. Mr. Brownlee stated that he would like to see these things addressed and asked that the annexation right-of-way come down to Galaxy Way. Mr. Quinn, President of the Homeowners Association stated that the Skyway exit has become a very popular entrance and exit. The Trilby intersection is somewhat difficult to get to, and he invited the Board to drive down Constellation between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. and see what they are seeing. His understanding is that there is no further upgrades to the Trilby/College intersection planned and that this would just be a helpful addition to the current annexation or plan to have congruent maintenance on that • street. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 10 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. Chairperson Bell asked if this Board was limited to the request of this proposal, specifically the applicant being Good Samaritan. Assistant City Attorney Duval replied that there was a particular petition before them. A specific piece of property that is requesting to be annexed into the City. The property they are asking to annex north of there apparently is owned by the County. There might be a question as to whether this petition could address that because the County has not come into ask that that part of the property be annexed. Chairperson Bell asked that since the petition before them is a specific request for a particular piece of property and it is customary for the road right-of-way to be annexed with now in total, is this part of the Board's purview and discretion to make a decision to add onto the proposal. Mr. Duval replied that whether the City annexes this or not is a legislative decision. Therefore, there is a lot more leeway because this Board is only making a recommendation to City Council and is not making the decision on the annexation itself. The Board's recommendation could be to grant the annexation, but encourage that steps be taken with consultation with the County, to see if the rest of the street could also be added to this annexation; or, maybe a further annexation could be considered to annex the rest of the road. Mr. Ludwig clarified that the first reading of this Ordinance is scheduled for December 17, 1996. This is a recommendation item and Council will make the ultimate decision. Member Chapman stated that he would be supporting this application for annexation as written basically because the road issues that have come up will be better addressed later when a development plan comes forward and transportation studies can be done. At that time the impact of traffic can be assessed and be a part of the development plan. At this point in the process there is not a way to address the valid issues of the neighborhood. Member Byrne stated that one of the difficulties that he has is trying to figure out the situation of the gerrymandering of jurisdictions between the City and County. It is not clear to him that annexation is going to make it any less chaotic, it seems to him that in the long-term it will be less chaotic as things sort out, but at this point there is nothing that indicates to him what the real outcome will be. Its like we are dealing with a problem that is much broader in scope that simply the Good Samaritan Village. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 11 Member Byrne asked why we were not annexing in bigger chunks to focus on some of the boarder issues. Director Blanchard replied that historically, annexations in the City have been all voluntary. Its been pretty rare that we have done involuntary annexations of enclaves. That will begin to change next year with some long-standing enclaves in the City. In this particular area there is no "enclave" under the definition that has been formed yet, so there is no opportunity for forced annexation. After an enclave is formed, it takes three years before the City can forcibly annex any property contained within an enclave. Member Byrne asked why this neighborhood has not been annexed. Was there a voluntary request to be annexed. Mr. Biscellia responded no, his understanding was that the City did not want any part of them because of the road conditions. That would be the only time they would take over Skyway. Chairperson Bell stated it was her understanding that when a subdivision petitions for • annexation, then negotiations begin as to what needs to take place, if anything, regarding roads. Until the neighborhood petitions for annexation, or else work with the County to upgrade the roads, there is nothing that this Board can do about it. It is unfortunate that the developer of the subdivision put in such poor roads. Mr. Biscellia commented that on account of the roads in that development, they will not take over the development because of the way the road are until they fix the roads themselves first, and then maybe they will take it over. Member Gaveldon stated he would support the annexation and zoning request giving the Council the recommendation. He stated that there are a process that needs to take place with voluntary annexation and urged the neighbors to follow the criteria. Member Gaveldon moved to recommend to City Council the annexation and zoning request for Fort Collins Good Samaritan Annexation and Zoning, including the rip zoning, #27-96. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Colton stated that he emphasized with the neighbors and that they want this to • come to some resolution. As some of his fellow Board Members mentioned, it may come down to the homeowners paying for the improvements or working out some other Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 12 agreement to get the roads fixed. Member Colton suggested that if there is a lot of construction traffic going through the neighborhood, that they post "no construction traffic" signs, or talk to the developer and ask them not to have their construction traffic drive on your streets. He would be supporting them motion. Member Byrne stated that the mistake that was done was done well in advance of what they are considering here, and one of the things that the City has to be very diligent about is the demands placed on the City budget for streets well exceeds the ability of the City to meet those. Bringing more sub -standard streets into the network of Fort Collins is something that he would very strongly oppose. We can't even keep up with the streets we have now, and those were built to City standards. Chairperson Bell asked about the College/Trilby intersection. She thought that when the Board approved the second phase of Ridgewood Hills that the intersection was supposed to be widened and improved. Ms. Wamhoff replied that the improvements to the intersection as far as pavement has been made. The stripping out there is not in accordance with the plans, and that should be changed so a left turn lane is striped at Trilby Road. It will be a tight intersection, but there will be a left turn lane. Chairperson Bell asked what this neighborhood could do to cut down on the cut-thru traffic on their streets. Ms. Wamhoff replied that it is a public right-of-way, so the City cannot say that they cannot drive on it. The best thing would be to talk to the developer of Ridgewood Hills and see if they could ask their contractors to take a different route. The motion was approved 7-0. Steve Olt, City Planner gave a staff report recommending the approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the HB - Highway Business Zoning District with a planned unit development (PUD) condition. Chairperson Bell asked why staff pulled this item. Director Blanchard replied that it needed to be pulled because the staff Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 13 recommendation was not the same as what was requested and that the applicant would still like to stand by their requested zoning district. Planner Olt stated that the applicant has filed an application for the 9.3 acre REA site and they are requesting CL - Limited Commercial zoning with no conditions. Staff at this point is recommending HB - Highway Business with a PUD condition on the property. Planner Olt stated that attached to the petition for annexation is an annexation agreement and there is one item that is very critical to the discussion tonight. In the annexation agreement would have to be exercised by both the applicant and the City prior to City Council making any final decision would allow the applicant to withdraw their annexation petition, disconnect from annexation into the City within 30 days after the effective date of the annexation if Council were to annex the property and should they not be granted the zoning as requested. Planner Olt stated that the critical element of the annexation agreement, and our concern from the staff standpoint, is the paragraph on page 2 of the agreement. • Paragraph 4 states, "that in the event that any Ordinance becomes effective in the City within 20 years after the effective date of the Annexation Ordinance, and such Ordinance alters and limits any owners right to use the property as contemplated by the agreement, then the City upon written request of the owner will proceed to take all necessary action to immediately disconnect of the property from the City's boundaries, and the property may not annexed subsequently except by voluntary petition by the owner". In essence what that would do is allow anytime within the 20 year period, if there were to be changes to the zoning district which would in effect change the allowable uses on the property, then they would exercise their right to disconnect from the City creating an enclave. An enclave under normal circumstances, the City would have a right to annex after a period of three years to force annex. The City would not be able to do that if this paragraph were maintained. Staff feels that this requirement is not in the best interest of the City and would recommend, should the Board decide that they were comfortable recommending that the property be placed in the CL Zoning District, that as a minimum, the requirements of the annexation agreement be changed. Member Weitkunat asked if this was in the realm of the Board's authority to agree to an annexation agreement. Assistant City Attorney Duval replied that this was another point in the whole issue that the Board is evaluating right now. In annexation proceedings, the Board is not making the final decision, yet the Board is called upon to make a recommendation to Council, • and part of that recommendation would be certain provisions of the annexation Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 14 agreement. The Board can make their recommendation taking the annexation agreement and some of its terms into consideration. Chairperson Bell asked why staff is recommending HB Zoning with a PUD condition. Planner Olt replied as requested, the CL Zoning District would allow this as a permitted use, however, it would have to go to a public hearing before the Current Planning Director. In this case it would have to go through a site and landscape plan review, and subsequently to a hearing before the Director, essentially without public input. Staff feels that a project of this nature is best served by actually going through a public input process. The CL Zoning as a permitted use would also be evaluated against the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. As a PUD, it will be evaluated against the All Development Criteria, the appropriate point chart, then would also be required to go through as a minimum, a nine week review process with more substantial public input, and ultimately to the Planning and Zoning Board for a final decision. Staff feels that is more appropriate for this land use on this site and that is why we have recommended the HB Zoning District with a PUD Condition in this area is appropriate. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant stated that the somewhat unusual condition of this site coming before the Board is that this is site in Larimer County that is zoned C Commercial and B, Business. It is platted and it is developed. It is not in the same condition that the vast majority of annexations that come in that are undeveloped and do not have the kind of commercial zoning in place that this project has. Right now the condition is that a very wide range of uses can occur on this site. The entire process is going to the Larimer County Building Department and pulling a building permit for any number of uses. The existing condition on the site is not the same as an undeveloped site. Mr. Ward stated that the owners and the applicants are willing to annex to the City if they can have zoning that is roughly equivalent to the zoning that they have in Larimer County. The trade off is that they would be willing to go through the more extensive City process for a use by right, including the All Development Criteria, and the Design Guidelines and Standards for all Commercial Developments that were adopted by the City last year. The trade off for the applicant is that the specific use anticipated would be allowed in the CL Zone, under the current zoning that use is allowed in the C, Commercial Zone, but would be restricted in the B, Business Zone, which is the College Avenue frontage. The B, Business Zone allows a great number of uses, but not automobile dealerships. Rather than restricting the proposed use away from College Avenue frontage and having to do another auto -related use or retail use in front, the applicants are willing to come into the City, but are not willing to completely give up the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 15 wide range of rights that they have right now, and put everything in the discretion of the PUD. Mr. Ward stated that the anticipation is that if the City is not comfortable with the CL Zone, that it is unlikely that the annexation will ever be brought to finalization. The question is should the site redevelop in the County under existing zoning, or is it better to develop in the City given the All Development Criteria and the Design Guidelines and Standards for all Commercial Development. Member Chapman asked for clarification of the existing zoning in the County. It is his understanding that the eastern 1/3 of the property is zoned Business, and the western 2/3 is zoned Commercial; and, for the application of a automobile sales facility is that the B, Business Zone would not be applicable to the automobile sales. Mr. Ward stated that was correct. Member Chapman asked, then in effect, if the applicant stays in the County, they would not have the full use of the eastern 1/3 of the property. • Mr. Ward replied that they would have the use of it, just not for an automobile dealership. It would be used for any number of retail uses. That is the incentive for coming into the City. In the applicants mind, that is the trade-off for the more extensive City review requirements. Chairperson Bell asked if they could petition the County for a zoning change. Mr. Ward replied that they could request a rezoning at any given time. Director Blanchard commented that to avoid any misunderstanding, there is some question on City staff in terms of the interpretation of the Intergovernmental Agreement about whether they really can proceed with development in the County. It is staffs interpretation that they may not be able to because of some of the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement. He just wants it clear that it has not been resolved among the two staffs yet. He did not want the Board to proceed along with the sense that it is a given, when in fact there are still some questions. Director Blanchard stated that there are some provisions and some statements about the fact that it only applies when there needs to be a decision made by the Board of County Commissioner's and also a statement that provisions of the IGA apply to non- • residential building permits as well. It is that interpretation that staff is grappling with right now. it is City staffs impression that they may not just be able to proceed with a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 16 building permit in the County, but that has not been resolved yet. Member Byrne asked Mr. Ward if the PUD Condition is a onerous burden to the applicant. Mr. Ward replied yes it is. Under the current system with the LDGS, the PUD process under the HB Zoning pretty much puts the use at the discretion of the Board. Their understanding of the status of this project is that the only reason to come into the City is if this use is clearly acceptable to the City. If the use is not acceptable, if the City wants to withhold the right to have the discretion to eliminate the use then the applicant is not interested in giving up the current zoning designation that is in the County. To have existing a long list of uses by right and to go from that to you can do a use, but only if it is part of a PUD is essentially a significant down zoning of the property as they see it. Member Chapman asked if the Board recommended that this be accepted in the zoning code of CL, other than going to the PUD, is there a way to get neighborhood input that would provide the mechanisms for mitigation of problems that this might cause without affecting the use by right as an automobile facility. Director Blanchard replied that the method that would occur would be an administrative hearing in front of him. It still is a public hearing and there is still notification, but the hearing is in front of the Planning Director. Member Gaveldon asked Mr. Ward if he was correct in that the current County process is equivalent to the city process of CL designation. Mr. Ward replied that the process is not. As they understand it, the site is zoned, it is developed in the County. The process in the County is to apply for a building permit. The process in the City is to essentially submit virtually the same documents that would be in a PUD. Site and Landscape Plans that would have to meet the LDGS All Development Criteria as well as the Design Guidelines and Standards for all Commercial Development. The process and the public hearing in the Planning Director's office -- there is a fair amount of more process and more design restrictions in the CL Zone in the City than in the existing County Zoning. Member Gaveldon asked to compare the CL and the HB with a PUD Condition. It seems to be similar but the CL may have some shorter steps, but still can have the same outcome, input, and direction. He was trying to understand the reluctance of the HB, PUD. He asked Mr. Ward to elaborate. Mr. Ward replied that the distinction is that under the HB, PUD, the applicant at the time Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 17 of annexation does not have assurance that the desired use will be allowed. The CL Zone clearly states that automobile dealerships are allowed by right in that zone. Member Colton asked if it was zoned CL without a PUD condition, if the project gets appealed, the Board would not get to look at the land use, only if the project meets the LDGS Criteria. The land use would be a given at that point. It would be evaluated for landscaping, parking , and site design elements. Planner Olt added that in the CL Zoning District without a PUD Condition, if it were appealed to the Board, the Board would be looking at the design elements, the land use would be determined. Member Colton asked Mr. Olt, with his knowledge of the existing County Zoning there, what are the design guidelines and criteria that the County has. Would we end up with something unpleasant, or are there some fairly rigorous design review type things at the County. • Planner Olt replied that he was not that familiar with the County's process. Director Blanchard added that we all have the feeling that we get better products inside the City because of our review process. We pay attention to neighborhood concerns, the All Development Criteria, and the Guidance System. We also have the opportunity to enhance the development projects. If a project does go forward in the County, it will be referred to the City for our comments at each of the various stages of review. The City does have some opportunity to provide input into the County process. It is advisory and recommendation only. Member Colton asked if the land use was the issue. Planner Olt replied that staff has done extensive evaluations of this site, working with the potential applicant at the time and this site, staff feels, is appropriate for the proposed land use, automobile sales. Director Blanchard added that we want the property in the City and want it to develop in the City. We agree that an auto sales facility is an appropriate land use on this site. The issue is the amenities that can be gained through the process and through review of the Guidance System that are far and above what you get through a use -by -right. 40 Member Weitkunat asked what other dealerships on South College are PUD's and were Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 18 any use -by rights through a CL Zone? Planner Olt replied that all of the dealerships, with maybe the exception of Reynolds Oldsmobile are all PUD's. Director Blanchard added that there is no CL Zoning in the City except for along Riverside Avenue east of College. Member Weitkunat moved to recommend the annexation of the REA property. Member Chapman seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Chapman moved to recommend to City Council that this property be zoned CL - Limited Commercial. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Byrne commented that the area he gets hung up on is that the applicant is trying to minimize the risk in the change in the land use. Land use is a vague notion and to a certain extent that does change with neighborhood input. What may appear to be a reasonable land use, when we do hear more from citizens, may change the Board's feeling about what is the correct land use. He felt the Board tries to be fair and doesn't try to adjust land uses just because they feel like it. They are trying to interpret the rules as they see them in ways they feel appropriate. He will not be supporting the motion because he does not feel they are in a position at this point to establish the land use. The recommendation by staff is the one he will support so we go through the necessary steps to make sure we have identified that it is an appropriate land use. If the applicant can't live with that, they can withdraw, they are free to do that. Member Gaveldon stated he also would not be supporting the motion. In looking at the comparison and discussion, land use is a risk, but the degree of risk varies from the neighbors to the applicant to Planning and Zoning and staff. He believes in the process, its fair, objective, and there is a good process in place. Making this the best development on behalf of the community and the recommendation from staff is appropriate. Member Chapman makes the observation that if the property is not annexed, it will remain in the County and could very well be developed as the automobile sales facility, but without the benefit of review. He also pointed out that South College is an • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 19 appropriate place for this use. He would be supporting the motion. Member Colton would not be supporting the motion. He would like it to go through the public process and that the HB Zoning with a PUD Condition has already set a precedent in the area. He did not see any reason to deviate from that at this point in time. He would support the staff recommendation. Member Davidson would not be supporting the motion, he felt the PUD is the way to go. He thought that if the applicant knew he could get what he wanted in the County, they would not of come to the City to begin with. Chairperson Bell also would not be supporting the motion as is. She also felt that this is a sensitive area and was not sure what the correct land use in this area is. It is a residential area, and in the past has had a lot of input from the surrounding neighbors. Member Weitkunat stated that in looking at this we are dealing with land use. There are two choices and it is a matter of process and she felt that the CL Zoning would work. • The motion failed 5-2 with Members Chapman and Weitkunat voting for the CL Zoning District. Member Byrne moved to recommend to City Council for this project the staff recommendation of Highway Business Zoning with a Planned Unit Development Condition. Member Gaveldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Chapman voting in the negative. Member Davidson moved to recommend approval the annexation agreement with the omission of number four from the annexation agreement in regards to the 20 year period they can withdraw from annexation if the zoning approved is CL. Member Chapman seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Weitkunat moved that this property be excluded from the residential • neighborhood sign district. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 20 Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. There was no other business The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.