Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/15/2001r� Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter and Meyer(late). Member Torgerson was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Jones, Moore, Shepard, Olt, Grubb, K. Moore, Reiff, Schlueter, Wamhoff, Virata, Wilder, Bracke, Daggett. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18 (Continued), October 19, 2000 and January 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. # 6-01 Harris Bilingual Elementary School Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review 3. #40-00 Lincoln Junior High School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review 4. #56-98J Settler's Green at Rigden Farm, PDP — Modification of Standards 5. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 6. #7-01 Staley Annexation, and Zoning 7. #1-01 Poudre Development Rezoning 8. #2-01 Speights PUD, Lots 6 & 7 and the West Half of Tract A Rezoning Discussion Agenda: 9. Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan 10. #40-98 Cathy Fromme Natural Area Annexation and Zoning 11. #40-98A Cathy Fromme 2"d Natural Area Annexation and Zoning 12. #43-98 Coyote Ridge 18t Annexation and Zoning 13. #43-98A Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation and Zoning 14. #43-98B Coyote Ridge 3'd Annexation and Zoning 15. #43-98C Coyote Ridge 4th Annexation and Zoning 16. #43-98D Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation and Zoning Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 2 17. #43-98E Coyote Ridge 6`h Annexation and Zoning 18. #3-01 2021 Timberline Lane Rezoning 19. #12-97D Harmony Technology Park, Hewlett Packard — Project Development Plan Member Colton and Chairperson Gavaldon declared a conflict of interest on Item 19, Hewlett Packard. Member Bernth declared a conflict of interest on Item 18, 2021 Timberline Rezoning. Lynn DiMirando, citizen asked for Item 3, Lincoln Jr. High School Addition be pulled for discussion. Betty Aragon, citizen, asked for Item 7, Poudre Development Rezoning be pulled for discussion. Member Craig asked for Item 4, Settlers Green at Rigden Farm, PDP, Modification of Standards be pulled for discussion. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1, minus the May 18s' minutes, 2, 5, 6, and 8. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Lincoln Junior High School Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review, #13-98B Project Description: Request to expand Lincoln Junior High School by constructing a new building containing 19,497 s.f. The building would feature classrooms, computer lab, gymnasium, recreational facilities and kitchen. The predominant after school user would be the Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County. The site is approximately one acre and zoned UE, Urban Estate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 3 Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Lynn DiMirando, 1529 West Vine spoke about his concerns with health and safety of the kids that go back and forth to Lincoln Junior High, traffic and parking with the new addition and wastewater runoff. Planner Shepard responded that there should be a presentation from the applicant. Ron Daggett, Poudre School District gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that this project is an addition to the Junior High School and will contain a gymnasium, three or four classrooms, some work areas and a variety of things for the youth. Poudre School District will use the building during the normal school days from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. The Boys and Girls Club will use the facility in the afternoon, evenings, weekends and summer months. Mr. Daggett responded to some of the health and safety concerns. He stated that he has been in contact with someone from the city Engineering Department. He stated there are plans for some crosswalk work as well as shoulders and bicycle lanes in that area. As far as parking and traffic goes, he did not foresee any increase in traffic or parking. The children who attend the Boys and Girls Club do not drive automobiles. They will be riding school buses or walking to the site. There is adequate parking on the site and if that becomes an issue, they will increase the parking. Lincoln is the largest Junior High site in the district and there is plenty of room to increase parking. Mr. Daggett responded to the issue of wastewater runoff. He stated he could resolve that by rebuilding the intersection so the water would not run across Vine Drive into Mr. DiMirando's front yard. They have already provided detention on the site to take care of the runoff from the new building. The issue is the historic runoff. Glenn Schlueter, Stormwater Department added that the School District has agreed to design a detention pond and also to rebuild the intersection. That would be an offsite improvement that we would normally not require, so if they are willing to do that it would be great. CITIZEN INPUT Mr. DiMirando felt that raising the intersection any more would just create more problems. He submitted pictures of the intersection for the Board to view. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Schlueter replied that staff has not really got into yet what the design or fix will be for that intersection. Member Craig asked Mr. Schlueter to involve Mr. DiMirando in the process. Mr. Schlueter replied he would. Member Craig asked what the city was going to do to improve the health and safety of the children. Tom Reiff, Transportation Department replied that the Engineering Department has identified the north shoulder of Vine Street to be improved by paving the soft shoulder that is currently there. That would add approximately 6 feet of bike lane and give or take an additional 4 feet of pavement for the sidewalk portion of it. It will go from Lancer to the other edge of Lancer all the way out to Taft Hill. The County will also make improvements to their portion of the street. Member Craig asked when the construction would occur. Mr. Reiff replied that the actual construction will not take place until the asphalt plants open in the spring and then it will be phased in. He was not sure what the time frame would be. He sees this as being completed by summer. Member Colton moved for approval of the Lincoln Junior High School Addition, #40-00. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Project Description: Settler's Green at Rigden Farm PDP — Modification of Standards Request for two Modifications to Section 3.5.3(D)(3) of the Land Use Code. Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 5 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig asked for staff to review the memo they just received regarding the condition and how that condition works. Troy Jones, City Planner replied that the condition would read: Staff recommends that the Modification to the Side Yard Setbacks be approved subject to the condition that the general notes on the site plan and plat for the Settlers Green PDP include all notes from the attached exhibit A. Exhibit A reads: All foundations are required to be staked by a licensed survey company to insure that the foundations are built in the proper location and do not cross property lines or setback requirements. 2. Detached garages and living or office space above are subject to a 0' side yard setback; all buildings actually constructed with a 0' side yard setback shall have a one hour rated firewall along any common property line. 3. If a structure is built with a 0' side yard setback (i.e. on the property line), the adjoining property cannot also build with a 0' side yard setback on the same property line. 4. Purchasers/Property owners will be required to sign easement agreements which will contain the following item: "Exterior Maintenance: Certain exterior walls of the dwelling and/or garage may not be accessible from within the property boundaries of the lot which said dwelling and/or garage is situate. There is hereby created an easement for access upon the adjoining lands for the purpose of maintenance of exterior walls, windows, eaves, overhangs, and downspouts. The party exercising the right to utilize any such easement for maintenance purposes is hereby responsible for any and all damage caused by them to the property of the party upon whose lands the easements are appurtenant. Mere access for maintenance shall not be considered damage." 05. Any architectural features of each dwelling and/or garage such as eaves, gutters, downspouts or roof overhangs must be contained entirely on the property where the building is located. Member Craig asked about #1, and was it already a requirement that a surveyor come in and stake the property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Jones replied yes. Member Craig stated that it was discussed at worksession that a second survey is done after the foundation is poured to make sure it is not over the lot line. Marc Virata, Engineering Department replied that a surveyor is the one who does the staking for a foundation. He suggested if a step further is needed that maybe some sort of certification be done. As it is stated now, it is not above and beyond what typically occurs. Member Craig was still concerned about mistakes being made with garages over the lot lines and what would happen if someone were to sell. Mr. Jones stated that in consulting with the Zoning Department about the eaves of the roof hanging over the lot line, they stated that they could not. So the foundations would have to be poured back a foot or so, so the zero lot line is really the eaves. The applicant does understand that. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Colton recommended approval of the Modifications of Standards for Settler's Green at Rigden Farm PDP referencing the findings of fact and conclusions and with a condition of approval that they meet the conditions of Exhibit A. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. 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. Buckingham Park forms the southeast border of the site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 7 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Betty Aragon, 140 2"d Street, advocate for the Buckingham Neighborhood, stated that the neighborhood does have concerns about the development they are looking to put in the Oxbow. They have been told rumors, and they would like to go on facts. There has not been much citizen outreach, and this is her concern. If they are planning on doing something so close to the neighborhood, there should be outreach to the neighborhood for citizen input. There was a gentlemen that came during Christmas week and gave them a preview or proposition that they were looking to do on the Poudre River Development, a botanical garden and outdoor amphitheater. The amphitheater was to be in this location, so there are concerns that if this is going to be an amphitheater, why has there not been more outreach to the neighborhood for input. That is why she was there, to make sure that they get the knowledge of what is going on so close to their neighborhood. She would like it clarified tonight what they are planning to build there and go from there. The Board asked for a staff presentation. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that the request was to rezone the 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. The parcel was zoned T, Transition upon the adoption of City Plan in March of 1997. He stated the staff report reflects the history of the parcel and several rezonings it has been through in the last 25 to 30 years. He stated that Timothy Wilder was there, who has worked on some of the implementation programs for the Poudre River Plans that have been adopted over the years. Tom Peterson, Planner, representing Poudre Development, who is applying for the rezoning tonight, stated that this property has been under the same ownership for a very long time. The reason it is before the Planning Board tonight, was that in 1996, when City Plan came in, the owners had the option of staying in the existing RC, River Corridor Zone at that time, which is now essentially the CCR zone. At that time, because of all the planning activities that was going on in the area, the owners opted to waive to T, Transition. They have not had any plans for development of this property. The property has been used for the wash site for the concrete trucks that belong to Poudre Pre -Mix for a number of years. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Peterson stated that the applicant has now decided to come back and ask that the CCR zone be put on the property. This particular area of town has been thought of, for planning purposes, as being an area adjunct to downtown and maybe an expansion of downtown. The surrounding zonings are E, Employment, I, Industrial (New Belgium Brewery), POL, Public Open Lands and RL, Low Density Residential (Buckingham Neighborhood), and the concrete plant across the river is zoned RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment. This property has been zoned in the past IG, General Industrial, and as stated before RC, as part of the implementation for the Poudre River Trust Plan and the Downtown Plan in the late 80's. With all the planning that has gone on in this area, and especially City Plan and the Structure Plan, the applicant believes, and staff concurs in their recommendation, that this property needs to be zoned CCR. Mr. Peterson went on to say that the Community Commercial Residential is the zone that allows areas of the downtown fringe, to have a variety of uses. It encourages redevelopment with moderate intensity uses. Certainly environmental restrictions that the city has in place will guide some of the development on this property. Mr. Peterson felt that this was a very straightforward and an appropriate rezoning based on the history with the community and with this property. The applicant does not have any plans for development at this time. Member Craig asked if Mr. Peterson was at the neighborhood meeting that was held in December. Mr. Peterson replied he was not. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Craig asked about the neighborhood meeting that Ms. Aragon was speaking of. Planner Shepard replied that he had no knowledge of it, but assumed it was someone from Parks and Recreation. Perhaps someone who was investigating one of the multiple sites for an outdoor performing arts center. Member Craig asked if there was a neighborhood meeting, and if not why? Planner Shepard replied there was not. There was no development proposal at this time. There would be a meeting, at the time there was something to take to the neighborhood to look at. We are required by law to take this out of the T, Transition, so we relied on the normal mailing and posting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 9 Member Craig asked who asked for this property to be put in the T, Transition zone. Planner Shepard replied that in the 1997 rezoning, RC, was not going to be a zone that carried over into City Plan, that zone no longer exists. Timothy Wilder, City Planner for Advanced Planner added that the old RC, was the old River Corridor District and was no longer in effect. The new RC is the River Conservation, and is completely different than the old district. The one zone that most closely resembles the old RC, is the CCR District. Therefore, that is the rationale for considering the CCR District at the time of the City Plan rezonings. At the time of the City Plan preparation, staff was considering the CCR District, which staff felt was the most appropriate district at the time. The owners were concerned about that district and so it was placed in the T, Transition District at that time. It was never officially zoned CCR. Member Craig asked about the Downtown Plan and the conceptual map in the plan. It specifically shows in this area H, Housing that the plan was looking for in this area. The plan references that it encourages new single family housing detached and attached units, medium density residential land uses and elderly retirement housing, as appropriate in areas of the Poudre River Corridor District. The plan states to rezone properties within the Downtown Corridor of the Poudre River to RC, River Corridor District. She was surprised from that, why we did not go into a specific river corridor when City Plan was put together. Director Gloss responded that Advanced Planning has put together a spread sheet analysis comparing the old RC and the CCR zoning District, which he passed out, that identified all the permitted uses in the review process and how closely they match. It was the closest match that we have to the old RC Zone is the CCR Zone. Member Craig stated that one of her biggest concerns was that in reading the Downtown Plan, housing was what the plan was looking for in this area. Housing in this area, as well as housing in the Link n Green area, was what the plan specifically called for in this area. On the Structure Plan, it is called Downtown District, and she looked that up in the Land Use Code, and Downtown District in the Land Use Code doesn't even show this property. It specifically talks about Downtown and the three sub -areas. That struck her as being put on the Structure Map wrong, it should have been put in green like Link n Green was, to signify that it was Poudre River Corridor. She wondered why it ended up as Downtown District on the Structure Map. She also wondered if staff had considered at all LMN, since the Structure Map showed the Buckingham neighborhood as LMN, and the Downtown conceptual plan shows, that it does prefer housing in this area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 10 Director Gloss replied that staff has spent considerable time this week trying to address the concern she raised at worksession. In poring through the document, seeing three graphics that identify housing as a potential use on this site. It was understandable that she could interpret that it was exclusive use for housing. The Strategic Action Plan on Page 71 specifically says to comprehensively rezone all annexed properties within the downtown corridor of the Poudre River to RC, River Corridor District. It proposes that the area have a mixture of uses, it was not exclusively residential or exclusively commercial or employment. It encourages a mix of uses, as does the CCR District. There are a variety of uses that are permitted, and that was the intention. In looking at the graphic on Page 78 of the Downtown Plan, it identifies different housing densities, but that was not exclusive. What the graphic was trying to depict, was where housing would be located, but not that you would have exclusively limited an area to housing. The plan was not exclusively dedicating this parcel to residential. The CCR zone does allow residential. Member Craig stated that her impression from the Downtown Plan was that it wanted housing in this area. Once you say CCR, then you are opening it up to hotels, retail, etc. As a property owner it probably it benefits you more to look at it from the retail side, or the entertainment side, than it does to look at it from the housing side. Director Gloss handed out the Strategic Action Chart from the Downtown implementation of the plan specifically calls for this property to be rezone was the clearest direction that the Downtown Plan could give staff. From perspective, CCR is comparable to the RC zone, and staff feels that CCR appropriate zoning district. Plan. The d to RC. That staffs is the Chairman Gavaldon asked if it was in the process to have outreach for rezonings. Planner Shepard replied yes, although we have not had many rezonings. Chairman Gavaldon asked why there was not a neighborhood meeting for outreach. Planner Shepard replied that with the new system, we do neighborhood meetings with the Project Development Plans so the neighbors can react to something. But, an old "hot -spot" that was carried over from 1997, T, Transition. As such, this request is not a typical request for a new zone but to place the parcel in the zone for which it was originally intended. The CCR zone has been specifically written for this site, was posted with a green sign and letters were mailed. There was no phone calls or letters received. Chairman Gavaldon felt that a "hot -spot' was a red flag that needed outreach. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 11 Planner Shepard replied that there would be a neighborhood meeting when there is a PDP. Chairman Gavaldon asked Ms. Aragon if she felt that a neighborhood meeting was needed at this time to help direct staff to what they felt would be an appropriate zone on this property. Ms. Aragon replied that was why she was there. They were left with rumors about what they are trying to build there. She felt they were being left out of the loop, and it was very important that they are part of the solution and their input is taken as important. She felt their opinion should be taken into account. The neighborhood is very concerned about an outdoor amphitheater so close to the neighborhood. They would put a strong opposition to something like that and a big concern would be parking. She was just trying to make sure the neighborhood has input. Member Colton felt there were enough concerns raised that he needed time to review the Downtown Plan. He would like to further investigate the LMN district that would allow some commercial but yet preserve the opportunities for residential in that area. Planner Wilder stated that staffs position was that CCR was appropriate because of the specific standards that are set up for the uses that are adjacent to the river. The LMN District does not have those standards. The CCR standards are less intense than other zones in the area. There are specific standards that orient toward the river, for example parking and streets you can have in the area. Staff felt that the very specific standards were a good fit for the district. Member Bernth felt that the CCR would be more protective for the river. Chairperson Gavaldon suggested that this item be continued for outreach from the neighborhood. Member Colton moved to continue this item until the next public meeting, so there can be a neighborhood meeting and also that each member get a copy of the Downtown Plan for further review prior to that meeting. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 12 Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the four Service Plans that are the proposed building blocks designed to guide the Transfort system toward its long-term goal of meeting the transit system defined in City Plan's Structure Plan. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: John Daggett, Transportation Department gave the staff presentation. Mr. Daggett reviewed the four scenarios. Member Craig asked in increasing productivity on College Avenue, was that a route that has the most people. Mr. Daggett replied that the College route is the most productive route in the system. Member Craig asked if the kids that ride to school during the school year continue to use the bus in the summer. Mr. Daggett replied that the percentage of young people who ride the bus to school, home from school and then to activities after school also ride the bus on Saturday's a great deal. Young people represent about 33% of total ridership on the Transfort system. CITIZEN INPUT None. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there would be a separate plan looked at for Dial -a -ride. Mr. Daggett replied that city staff has made a recommendation that the Dial -a -ride have a separate strategic plan of its own. Member Colton asked Mr. Daggett to explain how he planned on approaching City Council about the funding. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Daggett responded that staffs perspective is more that the implementation of the future alternatives are really an appropriation process. This is a strategic plan that lays out the guidelines. The implementation of the various scenarios, they are your guide, and as you move forward from scenario one, which is at no cost, to scenario two, which has a contingency of a federal grant for $38,000,000 for capital improvements. If we receive the money, then City Council would have to make an appropriation decision. The 3`d and 4th scenarios are goals of theirs that would also end up in an appropriation decision on the part of City Council. Member Colton recommended approval of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan to City Council. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Colton commented that a lot of good work has gone into this plan and was very well thought out. He felt funding may be a problem, but it is a good vision. Member Craig concurred. She felt it was a very well put together plan. She felt that they have raised productivity in a very admirable way. She wished we could get more employers on board. Chairperson Gavaldon also concurred with other members. He hoped as more employment moves to the Harmony Corridor that a good eye is kept and that we don't overload any routes. He also was concerned about the funding. The motion was approved 5-0. Projects: Cathy Fromme 1st Natural Area Annexation & Zoning, #40-98 Cathy Fromme 2Id Natural Area Annexation & Zoning, #40-98A Coyote Ridge 1st Annexation & Zoning, #43-98 Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation & Zoning, #43-98A Coyote Ridge Td Annexation & Zoning, #43-98B Coyote Ridge 4th Annexation & Zoning, #43-98C Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation & Zoning, #43-98D Coyote Ridge 6th Annexation & Zoning, #43-98E Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 14 Project Description: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 237 Acres (Cathy Fromme 1st (81) and 2"d (156) and Coyote Ridge 1,096.5 Acres (Coyote Ridge 1sr (2.5), 2"d (181), 3`d (161), 4r' (192), 5t' (325) and 6"'(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 presented graphics of the proposed annexations. He spoke on the location and surrounding uses. Mr. Jones stated that this series of annexations would create an enclave of county properties which the city would have the option three years from the effective date of these annexations to annex the enclave. Mr. Jones addressed the question from worksession about why we want this annexation. The first reason is that the Natural Resource Department currently have portions of the Cathy Fromme and Coyote Ridge Natural Areas open to the public. There are also portions that are not open to the public. This causes some confusion for enforcement. The rangers that are employees of the Natural Resources Department police the areas that are open to the public, whereas, the areas not open to the public are policed by the Sheriff. The Natural Resources Department would like to get the properties into one jurisdiction so there will be no question about who has authority. The second is to give the city the option, three years into the future, if Council so chooses at that point, to be able to annex the enclave created by these annexations. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Colton stated that these same proposals came up two years ago and there were serious questions about the implications about doing this in terms of the Urban Growth Area, policy, cost of road maintenance and the desirability of having an enclave or not. It went to the Growth Management Committee and they said they did not want to act on these proposals. He was concerned about these proposals coming back without having Council specifically give direction for them to come back. He asked why they are coming back again. Planner Jones reported that it was his understanding that when the annexations came forward the first time, the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins specifically said that we agree that we won't annex properties Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 15 outside of the Urban Growth Area. Since, there has been a change that says that the city has the discretion to do that. The reason for the change was for something like this to happen, where there is a natural area outside of the city limits. The change would give the city the option for annexation. It used to say in the Intergovernmental Agreement that we can't annex south of County Road 32. That was an effort to keep the area between Fort Collins and Loveland in compliance with the separator plan we have called The Plan for the Area between Fort Collins and Loveland. One exception that if it is a natural area that is being annexed, and it is consistent with what is shown in that plan for open space in that area, that would be the exception that the city could annex past County Road 32. There is the one -quarter section of the Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation that is south of that alignment. Member Colton stated that he did not specifically remember a major concern being that we could not annex without moving the UGA. Planner Jones stated that he inherited the project about two years ago. He stated that after he started, Bob Blanchard and Alan Krcmarik did a study specifically talking about the enclave and the cost of doing that enclave. What it would cost now versus in the future. What we are talking about tonight is the annexations, and although it would create the possibility to annex the enclave in the future, we are not saying that we are going to do that tonight, and we are not saying that we are not. We are only saying that there is a possibility established to make that decision in the future. Member Craig asked about the new Intergovernmental Agreement and did he have a round figure of what is in the enclave, that if it were not an enclave, could come in as County Development and there would not be urban standards. Planner Jones replied that the IGA basically says that if a development proposal comes in for a piece of ground that is contiguous to the city limits and it is in the county. The county will send them to the city for annexation and develop under city rules. The new agreement also prohibits applicants from subdividing property to create a property that had contiguity to the city no longer have contiguity. He stated that there has not been an analysis of how much of the land is not contiguous to the city, so if development does come in we would not have control over it versus the stuff that is contiguous that would trigger a city review. Member Craig thought the IGA says that if they are in the UGA, and they are contiguous to city boundaries they have to go to the city. She asked if that has been taken out of the IGA. Planner Jones replied it has not been taken out. In the Larimer County Land Use Code, in Section 4.2, it says, "that if a project goes before the County Commissioners as the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 16 final authority, then instead of doing that, they are required to annex. But if the project is under a certain amount of trips, then they do not have to go before the County Commissioners for their final decision and they have the choice of not annexing." Member Craig asked for clarification from the legal staff. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that except for the receiving area land in connection with the Fossil Creek Reservoir, the County agrees that it will not accept any development application, as that term is defined in Section 4.2.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, for property that has any contiguity to the city limits and thus, can be made eligible for voluntary annexation to the city, whether through a series of annexations or otherwise. He felt the catch was that some things that look like development to us, are in the County's terminology not development applications. Director Gloss added that based on the number of applications we have gotten in, it was his understanding that most of the review going through the county process is going through the Planning Board or the staff and not the County Commissioners. Just like development applications in the city do not go to City Council, they go to the Planning Board or an Administrative Hearing Officer. Most of the applications, the Commissioners are not going to see, and if it is contiguous and does not meet the threshold, then it is not forced to be annexed and meet the standards. We routinely get development applications referred to us in Larimer County, in the urban area, and our comment is that they meet the city standard, but there is no teeth in their code to require it. We can only request that they do it. The only exception is the new urban area street standards and those were enacted March 155. The applicants will now have to meet the street standards. Member Craig felt that was a huge loophole and felt the Board should send some recommendations to Council. Chairperson Gavaldon suggested that they talk about that issue at an upcoming worksession. Chairperson Gavaldon was unclear about anything that has changed since the first time the Board saw these applications. Planner Jones replied that he did not think anything has changed except for the language in the IGA. Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department added that one change is that we are starting to use those natural areas and we are starting to try to manage them. There is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 17 a higher use of that area than there has been in the past. There is now more of a need by the Natural Resources Department to have these properties annexed. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the Sheriff can deputize the Rangers to perform the duties as required without having to annex. Planner Jones stated that he talked with Tom Shoemaker and he stated that there were ways it could be arranged, but the Natural Resources department would prefer a cleaner way of doing it and just make it part of the city so there is no question of the authority. Member Colton asked if the Natural Resources Board has heard this and what was their recommendation. Mr. Moore replied that they were recommending annexation. Member Craig asked how many feet of street is in the flag pole annexation. Planner Jones replied roughly '% mile. That is the road right-of-way and also 100 feet of land within the southern portion of the Land Fill property. Planner Jones reviewed slides of the proposed annexations. Member Colton stated that in the petition for annexation, it shows eight points. He did not feel that it has been shown that it is desirable and necessary that they be annexed into the city of Fort Collins. He also did not believe that the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. He felt that this needs to be continued to have Council Growth Management give some further direction on whether we want to pursue the main intent of this, which is creating an enclave, or that we vote it down tonight because of the points. He did not feel that he can approve this given the fact that this identical proposal raises some serious concerns not more than two years ago, enough that it was pretty well derailed in the eyes of the Growth Management Council. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if it was possible to get this to the Council Growth Management Committee to look at this and follow what Member Colton is looking for, and help the Board out on the enclave issue. Director Gloss believed that we could do that in the 60 days prescribed in the Code. Member Colton recommended continuance of the eight proposed annexations to have Council Growth Management hear the items to see if they feel it is worth pursuing. He recommended continuance until the second meeting in April after Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 18 Council Growth Management has had a chance to review the proposed annexations. He also asked that the Natural Resources Department come back with alternatives regarding enforcement with a memo from the Sheriff's Department and a presentation at worksession from Natural Resources including a memo as part of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion for continuance was approved 6-0. Project: 2021 Timberline Lane Rezoning, #3-01 Project Description: Request to rezone approximately .75 acre located at 2021 Timberline lane from UE, Urban Estate, to HC, Harmony Corridor. The parcel is generally located west of and adjacent to Timberline Road, south of and adjacent to Timberline Lane and approximately 150 feet north of Harmony Road. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, written Comments and Other Evidence Member Bernth claimed a conflict of interest on this item and excused himself. Brian Grubb, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that a letter that was received today from a surrounding property owner was being distributed for the record. He stated that the site currently has a garage and a mobile home existing, and gains access from Timberline Lane to the north. He reported that there are a variety of surrounding land uses, to the north and to the west there is low -density residential development. To the east is a Diamond Shamrock and the old Harmony School; to the south, the old Harmony Store and some small residences and businesses located along Harmony Road. Planner Grubb reviewed the site shots for the Board. He stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held and there were approximately 10 neighbors that showed up. He stated there were a variety of comments and concerns and those were included in the Board's packet. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 19 Planner Grubb reviewed the criteria for approval and stated that the proposal was in conformance with the City Plan Structure Map and was generally in conformance with the goals and policies of City Plan. The proposal is in general conformance with the Harmony Corridor Plan Land Use Map and generally in conformance with the goals and policies of the document. The request to rezone generally satisfies the applicable review criteria of Section 2.9.4(H) of the Land Use Code. Member Craig asked if the applicant is granted the HC Zone District, how would we stop other property owners in the area from requesting the same zoning and prohibit large scale development in this neighborhood. Planner Grubb replied that if the Board was concerned about the number of rezoning requests we may receive in this area, we may want to go back and look at the Structure Plan Map and the Harmony Corridor Plan, and modify those documents to more accurately express what it is we want to occur there. Vaughn Furness, Jim Sell Design, representing the applicant, JD Padilla, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that according to the Structure Plan Map this area is designated as E, Employment or HC, Harmony Corridor. He stated that his client is looking for an area for a financial institution to run his mortgage business out of. That is what this particular lot would be. He spoke about the current negotiations for the widening of Timberline and Harmony Roads and that it would significantly impact the parcel on the corner. The applicant has mentioned that through the PDP process, he would be willing to work to create a structure that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood should not be surprised because this area has always been identified as E, Employment or HC, Harmony Corridor. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Craig asked if there was a staff person available that was involved when this neighborhood was annexed and given UE, Urban Estate zoning. Planner Grubb responded there was not. Staff did report that the intent was when the property was annexed, that the property would remain Urban Estate. The property was annexed in 1981, and the neighborhood wanted to stay Urban Estate and as rural. In 1995, the Harmony Corridor Plan started to show some encroachment of employment uses along Harmony Road. In 1997, the City Structure Plan Map showed further encroachment of those employment uses, while still maintaining a core of residential uses in that area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 20 Member Craig stated that there were meetings with this neighborhood during City Plan and they were assured at that time that'itwould be zoned Urban Estate. That was past Harmony Corridor, 1996 and 1997, and that was the kind of information that she felt she needed. She did not want the people, that have been in a neighborhood situation, and has heard from the city that they were assured to keep their zoning, to have their zoning changed to HC. She stated that all through the Harmony Corridor Plan it talks about not destroying existing neighborhoods. She did not want to get caught up on a purple spot, when there are other spots on the Structure Map that are the wrong color and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Planner Grub stated that the Advance Planning staff did not support this application. The intent was to have this neighborhood stay Urban Estate. Staff did not agree on this recommendation, however, what came out of the Growth Management Lead Team meeting was that this was the best recommendation given the circumstances. Member Carpenter stated that she served on the Harmony Corridor Advisory Committee and also on the City Plan Advisory Committee and she did not recall this particular neighborhood. She stated that they were not looking to destroy existing neighborhoods, but to strengthen them. She was bothered by this particular piece on a residential street, especially when we go to the Structure Plan to justify it. She was not sure whether it was a mistake, but that street is clearly Urban Estate and has been for some time. She did not feel that this was something that was intended in the Harmon Corridor Plan or City Plan. Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department, reported that staff did go out and evaluate this area, and the cottonwoods have depredated to the point where this area could not be considered an isolated path for riparian forest. There are a lot of other trees that have been planted in places in the neighborhood, and we would expect that the City Forester would go out and evaluate the trees. Member Colton agreed with Member Craig and the Advance Planning Staff that the intent was Urban Estate. In his opinion, if we want to change this area, instead of doing an incremental approach, it would be better to do it like Pioneer Mobile Home Park and buy the whole thing and then come in and: change it on the Structure Plan to Harmony Corridor. Member Colton recommended to City Council denial of the rezoning request for 2021 Timberline Lane. Member Colton cited that the rezoning is not warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Also that it is not compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 21 Member Craig seconded the motion. Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he agreed that the conditions in the neighborhood have not changed to justify the request. Member Colton commented that he would like to discuss going back and re -address the detail on the Structure Plan on this if it does not match and make a change to the map. Director Gloss replied that it would be something for the Board to consider. If there were a denial, it would be a stronger case„if the plan were changed to reflect the UE zoning that has been assigned to the property. The Board could direct staff to look at that issue. Deputy City Attorney Beckman added that it was not only the Structure Plan Map that is troublesome in this case, but also some of the maps that are in the Harmony Corridor Plan. He felt that both maps should be looked at. The motion for denial was approved, 4-1 with Member Meyer voting in the negative. Project Harmony Technology Park, Hewlett Packard, Project Development Plan, #12-97D Project Description: Request for 750,000 square feet of office and research & development uses in six buildings on 61.3 acres. The property is located on the south side of East Harmony Road, east of County Road 9, north of County Road 36, and west of Cambridge Avenue. The existing Celestica facility is adjacent to the west. The property is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval with Condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chairperson Gavaldon and Member Colton excused themselves because of a conflict of interest on this project. Member Bernth returned as Chairperson. Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that the Board has been given tonight a request for Modification of. Standard dealing with the design of the curb cuts in the driveway approaches within the site. He stated that the Project Development Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 22 Plan, including the proposed Primary and Accessory land uses, is consistent with the approved Harmony Technology Park, Amended ODP. The proposed land uses are permitted in the HC, Harmony Corridor District. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.21 of the Land Use Code, HC zone district. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. He stated that staff was recommending approval with the condition: This Project Development Plan is approved for the normal three years of vesting property rights, or for such longer term as City Council may determine by Ordinance. The reason for the condition is the Hewlett Packard has requested an extended term for vesting of their property rights should this be approved. That item is being taken to City Council on March 20, 2001 for first reading. The request is specifically for this site. Will Ardwino, Public Affairs Manager for Hewlett Packard in Colorado spoke on behalf of the applicant. He gave a history of Hewlett Packard in Fort Collins. He asked for the Board's consideration of their Project Development Plan. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, representing the applicant gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Hendee reviewed slides of the proposal and gave an overview of the site and the Overall Master Plan. He also discussed circulation, the size of the buildings, their phasing plan, detention on the site, landscaping and access. Dennis Armstrong, Architect for Michael Barber Architecture spoke about the building architecture. Mr. Armstrong discussed mass and scale, elevations, building materials, color and architectural character. Mr. Hendee spoke on the requested modification. He stated that the modification would alter Section 3.6.2L(2)(e) of the Land Use Code. He stated that the city has a standard that is a curb cut as opposed to creating something that appears more like a radius. They are asking for a modification, that would allow their main entry drives to look more like a radius, because they would like visitors to be able to discern between a main visitor entry to the project versus an employee entrance to the project. It is a change that under the new Street Standards that have just recently been adopted for Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, would be required. Mr. Hendee stated that in requesting the modification, there were four different things that they need to discuss tonight. First is how would it differ from the standard. They would use it as a primary entry point. Next, why can't the standard be met. It can be met, there is no reason it can't be met. They are simply asking for an alternative Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 23 driveway connection opportunity. What problems might result in the modification of the standard. There are no problems that would result from the modification. What health safety or welfare problems would be created by the modification. There are no health safety or welfare problems. Member Craig asked about openings to the buildings on all four sides. Mr. Hendee pointed out the exits on the buildings. Member Craig stated that in looking at the campus sidewalk, it does not have a sidewalk that goes into the building on the campus side. Mr. Hendee replied that the area is to be designed in detail. They fully intend on making the campus area a fully connected location for employees to be able to access directly. Mr. Hendee made that commitment on the record tonight. Member Craig asked about the traffic signal at Technology Parkway. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department replied that when they start building Technology Parkway as their main access point and when the first phase goes in, the signal construction will begin. It will probably get turned on when they first open. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Craig asked if the building that was shown to them was a standard building that Hewlett Packard builds. Mr. Armstrong replied yes Member Craig asked if there was some sense of how much of the building would be metal versus some of the other materials being used. Mr. Armstrong replied metal will be used in a limited use. Member Craig asked about the berming along Harmony Road. Mr. Hendee replied that they will be doing two things to make sure you can't see the parking. First the berming will be as high as it can be. Also, the evergreen backdrop would really encompass the perimeter of the site. Ultimately, there will be a complete concealment of the parking. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 24 Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Modification of Standard to Section 3.6.2 Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements with the condition that the design and construction of all driveways in the development proposal shall comply with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. That granting the requested modification would not be detrimental to the public good and would protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well; as there is virtually no functional difference between a radius curb intersection of a private drive and a driveway cut intersection of a private drive, provided the design and construction is in compliance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Meyer moved for approval Hewlett Packard at Harmony Technology Park, Project Development Plan, #12-97D with the following condition: 1. This Project Development Plan is approved for the normal three years of vesting property rights, or for such longer term as City Council may determine by Ordinance. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig was concerned with the area becoming very high employment with no neighborhood services. She asked that they look at more services in the area as part of their Master Plan. The motion was approved 4-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.