Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/18/200111 Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torqerson rperson Gavaldon called the meeting to Cameron Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7431 at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Colton, Craig, Torgerson and Gavaldon. Members Meyer and Bernth were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Stringer, Joy, Frank, Dairies and Alfers. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 16, and December 7, 2000 (CONTINUED), and September 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. 725 South Taft Hill Road — Modification of Standards 3. #41-98B Pineridge 5th Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 4. #31-01 Macallister Residential Group Home 5. #37-01 Recommendation to City Council for Deletions to the Regional 1-25 Corridor Plan 6. #32-01 Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment Item #2, 725 South Taft Hill Road Modification of Standards was pulled for discussion by staff. Member Craig moved for approval of Consent items September 17, 2001 minutes and Item 3, Pineridge 5th Annexation and Zoning. She offered an amendment to the September 17 minutes. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Craig asked for an amendment to the September 17th minutes and asked that a sketch of scenario B and C be included. Also the minutes talk about staffs finding number 5 and finding number 6, but the minutes don't give any explanation of what they were. She asked that those amendments be made to the minutes. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 2 Project: 725 South Taft Hill Road — Modification of Standard, #41-01 Project Description: Request to modify two specific sections of the Land Use Code for an upcoming replat application. One request is to reduce the required rear yard setback for a residential structure, and the other request is to deviate from the required minimum density in the MMN zone district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the board consider the modification request to section 3.5.2(D)(3) and that the board approve the modification request to section 4.5(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Jones gave a visual presentation for the Board giving location, zoning (MMN), the surrounding zoning and uses. He stated that the site has an existing house and an existing accessory structure in the backyard. The accessory structure was originally built as a garage. A previous property owner had tried to convert in the past, without getting permits, to a residential unit. They were informed at that time that they could not do that because it was too close to the property line. The former property owner then resumed use as a garage and storage area. The new property owner is now requesting the two modifications so that they can convert the garage/accessory building to a residential unit. Planner Jones explained that the modification request was coming before a formal request to plat the lot into two lots. The two requests that they are making is to reduce the rear yard setback. The new lot would have a front lot line on Orchard Place. The rear lot line would be only 2.2 feet away. Planner Jones showed the Board site shots of the site. Planner Jones also explained that the second modification request was to reduce the required minimum density in the MMN zone district. If they create these two lots they will not satisfy the minimum 12 units per acre in the MMN zone. They are one unit short of meeting the requirement. Planner Jones mentioned a letter received from the property owner directly to the north of 725 South Taft Hill that is opposed to the granting of the modification request based on the letter. He also clarified in the staff report the language the Board can use if they feel the modification request satisfies the standards. Planner Jones reviewed Section Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 3 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code for the Board. He stated that staff is on the fence with this one and did not recommend approval or denial. Staff gave the Board two sets of findings, one in favor and one not in favor that they could use depending on the Board's interpretation. CJ Haynes, property owner of 725 South Taft Hill Road stated that they were requesting a modification. She stated that they want to increase the number of families that can live on the site to help with the MMN zoning. She did not feel that it was a detriment to the public good since the previous property owner stopped construction in 1995 and the property has been decaying since then. The roof is falling in, the windows are broken and it has been vandalized a couple times. At this point it is not fit for use until it is brought up to code. That is their goal to bring the structure up to code and make it a single-family residence. Taft Hill is a very busy street and removing the driveway and putting it on the Orchard side is definitely better for safety. She stated that they would also be closing the drive to the other single-family residence and both new driveways would be on Orchard. Ms. Haynes stated that they feel it is an eyesore and it is dangerous. Ms. Haynes felt the property would be better used as something else. She also stated that the neighbor at this time is storing a large boat right next to the garage, and the neighbor's house is about 50 feet away. She was unsure about the neighbor's complaint because they could make this site much more intense and have more activity on the site. Public Input Dorothy Benedict, 715 South Taft Hill wanted to clarify that the garage was always the previous owners car garage. They also build a boat shelter behind it and it is about 3C inches from their property line. They also have a boat stored there but it belongs to their son. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked the applicant how the °garage" with fencing around it has been vandalized? Russell Johnson, co -applicant responded that what has happened is it has become a "cut -through" for the residents of the apartment building to get to Taft Hill. There is an alleyway between the building and the fence for the apartment. It is a perfect alleyway for kids to drink and he has picked up beer and whiskey bottles there. The structure had been vandalized when they bought the property. The windows are broken and paint that was stored in the building was opened and sprayed on the walls. When it was done he did not know. There is evidence of vandalism there. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 4 Planner Jones clarified for the Board that there is an opening in the current fence configuration and it would be possible for someone to walk through there. Member Craig asked if someone were to live in the house and the opening in the fence would still be there, would it not still be possible for someone to still cut -through the area. Ms. Haynes replied that there would be a driveway there and a sidewalk to the house. The fence would be closed in because it would then be a complete residence. Member Craig asked it there would be a fence between the two houses. Mr. Johnson replied that both lots would be fenced in. Mr. Johnson explained the re- configuration of the lot. He also explained that someone would be living in the structure and it would be hard for people to cut -through your yard. Right now it looks like a vacant lot. Chairperson Gavaldon asked how many of the trees would be removed. Mr. Johnson replied none. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the setbacks. Planner Jones replied that from the west fence line it is 7.2 and to the north it is 2.8 feet. The code would require it to be 15 feet when it is made into a new platted lot for the rear setback. Member Colton asked what the purpose is to have a rear setback minimum. Planner Jones replied that it would be for privacy between the two lots. It is hard to say in this case because the front yard will be so large, whether the rear yard needs to be or not. Member Colton asked what the minimum setback is for the front. Planner Jones replied that 15 feet would be the closest they could go to the street, but there is no limit as to how far back they can go from the street. Member Colton asked about the side yard from another property. Planner Jones replied that the side lot line has to be at least 5 feet away. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 5 Member Colton asked what the applicant could do with this property if this application is denied because of the setback. They could build a building up closer and just get one modification to the density. Planner Jones responded that they could level everything and build an MMN type of apartment building. Another thing they could do is level the back building or move it to a location on the site that would allow it. They could also divide it into three lots and have a third unit and the density would be fine. Member Colton asked what the minimum lot size is in MMN. Planner Jones replied there is none. Member Torgerson asked if the applicant has explored the building code issues in terms of bringing this building up to code. Mr. Johnson replied that was the first department they met with and it can be done. It has to be brought up to today's present code and there were no issues that would stop them from bringing the property up to code. Member Torgerson commented that it seems like with its proximity to the property line there will be fire separation issues. Mr. Johnson replied that at conceptual review the fire department did not have any issues. They just needed enough room to drag the hoses back there. He thought that was two feet. Member Torgerson thought that was true as far as the land planning process. In terms of the building process there would be a lot that will have to be done in making that a firewall if it is adjacent to a property line that close. Mr. Johnson replied they have found out what they would have to do for that also. Member Torgerson said that where he was going was as the property has been described, it is a marginal structure with some damage and deterioration. Mr. Johnson replied that it is a really nice structure, but has been neglected for five years. Ms. Haynes added that the inside has been remodeled so there are two bedrooms with high ceilings, a nice bathroom and a nice little kitchen and living room area. She felt the structure was sound but needed a lot of work. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 6 Chairperson Gavaldon asked about utilities and did staff foresee any problems. Dave Stringer, Development Review Engineering Manager replied that because this was a modification staff has not got into those issues yet. When it comes in as a replat, that is when utilities, engineering and storm water will have their input as to what we think would be required for that project. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the property line being so close on the north side. Mr. Stringer replied that he did not see a real issue with that as far as engineering is concerned. It looks like they are willing to extend the property line to the north to the backside of the path sidewalk. That would satisfy their concern on the Orchard Street side. He particularly liked the idea of the removal of the two driveways on Taft Hill, that is a major improvement as far as they are concerned. Member Torgerson asked if the applicant had explored acquiring an additional 13 feet to the north and doing a lot line adjustment. Mr. Johnson replied no they have not. It is the neighbor that is opposing this. If they would be willing, we would be interested. There is about 50 feet now between the two structures. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the modification request to Section 4.5(D)(1), density, of the Land Use Code. Based on the fact that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that the strict application of the standard should be modified due to unusual and exceptional practical difficulties unique to the property. It would be relatively difficult to add two more units to this area of land without having a detrimental affect to the existing home that was permitted properly. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion as approved 5-0. Member Craig moved for denial of the setback modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(3) of the Land Use Code. She did not feel it constitutes an unusual and exceptional practical difficulty due to physical conditions unique to such property. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Torgerson felt that this would be detrimental and the neighbor to the north has a legitimate concern about its proximity to their property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 7 Member Craig agreed with Member Torgerson and if the neighbor had agreed and did not have a problem with this then she would think twice about it. She felt that the applicant had other choices with what to do with the garage. Member Colton also agreed and did feel there was a separation issue. Member Carpenter could not find a way to make this a hardship when this was the previous owner basically trying to get around getting a building permit. She would support the motion. Chairperson Gavaldon felt this was not a hardship and felt there were other creative aspects that could be explored. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Macallister Residential Group Home, #31-01 Project Description: Request for an assisted living residential group home for six to eight elderly clients located at 1214 Catalpa Place in the Ponds at Overland Trail, Second Filing. The lot is 17,072 square feet and is presently vacant. The entire subdivision is zoned RF, Foothills Residential. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation -recommending approval of the proposed group home. Planner Shepard referenced a letter that was handed out tonight that staff received after the worksession on Friday. Doug Macallister, 7766 West Ottawa Drive, Littleton gave the applicants presentation. He stated that they are proposing to move and build a home at 1214 Catalpa Place. It will be their residence, which is a single story building with a walkout basement. He explained that he and his wife have a growing desire to care for the elderly, disabled elderly or those that are impaired from living independently. He explained that it would be a four -bedroom ranch and they propose to have six to eight clients. He and his wife would reside in the basement. Mrs. Macallister also Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 8 explained that this would be a family setting where this would be their home also. There would be no signage outside. Public Input Margaret Griffin, lives in the Ponds stated that she was in favor of the Macallister Group Home. She felt that we need group homes sprinkled throughout the community. Public Input Closed Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Macallister Residential Group Home, #31-01. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that this reminded her of the daycare's that we keep having crop up in the neighborhoods and the neighbors come before the Board and say that the covenants don't cover them, etc. She feels that when neighborhood associations are put together, they decide what they want in the neighborhoods and if they don't get it put into the covenants that way, they can change it. At this point in time, the rule of the neighborhood says that the assisted living or even daycare is not only appropriate, but is what the city would like to see. She sees a public good coming of this home and she hopes, because of the letter received, that parking and intrusion is their neighbors biggest concerns. She asked that the applicant keep that in mind when they have people come and show that you want to be a good neighbor. Chairperson Gavaldon would support the motion and was glad to see this home on the west side because he does support dispersing the group homes throughout the community. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council for deletions to the Regional 1-25 Corridor Plan. Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for deletions to the Regional 1-25 Corridor Plan. The issues are funding of transportation improvements; and certain phrases in the Plan that appear to overly "promote" or "encourage" urban development in the Corridor. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 9 Hearing Testimony. Comments and Other Evidence: Joe Frank, Director of Advanced Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that Council had given direction to staff to review the Plan and identify some areas in the Plan that could potentially be cut. There were two issues that were identified at the Town Meeting: 1. The funding of the transportation improvements. 2. Certain phrases of the Plan that seemed to overly "promote" or "encourage" development in the Corridor. The Council asked for staff to look at the Plan and see what the impact would be for deleting those sections dealing with those two issues. They also asked staff to go back to the Boards and Commissions that have been involved in the Plan and get any comments on the proposed deletions. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Colton asked what was the intent of allowing deletions and how extensive could they be. Mr. Frank replied that the direction received from Council was that they did not want to significantly impact the integrity of the Plan. Deleting whole elements of the Plan was not the direction. Council wanted to focus on the two issues, transportation funding improvements and the phrases that seem to promote development. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Frank if he had noted his comments from the worksession on Section III, Corridor Vision. Mr. Frank replied that one was to leave in 'long term viability" and the other was in the second line of the first paragraph; the suggestion was to take out "for development'. That sentence would then read 'creating a framework that focused on improvement of quality, location and environmental sensitivity". Member Craig commented that the same issues has bothered her about the Plan throughout. In the Plan there are only three pages under Section III, Development, Location and Quality. There are only five pages under Section V, Open Lands and Natural Areas. In contrast, there are eleven pages under Section VI, Transportation. As a Principle under Transportation, it states, "this Plan addresses how and where the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 10 parallel road system might occur." The Plan authors created travel models, evaluated numerous travel alternatives, a transportation analysis was done, issues were identified, meetings were held, various regional transportation plans were integrated. The end result was a conceptual transportation plan, which is included in this Plan. The objectives under the goal were met, before the implementation of this Plan. That bothers her. Meanwhile under the Open Lands and Natural Areas Policy, the intent was to "provide a basic direction". It states in the introduction under Section V, "this element of the Plan addresses open lands and natural areas broadly." Under Principles it talks of "approaching the protection of open areas under several layers of specificity, to be found in a non -included standard." There is nothing in the Plan. It talks about not developing in the FEMA floodplain, which Fort Collins is not even honoring in our Sub - Area Plan. It states, 'community should determine appropriate setbacks." The action words in this are "encourage." There are no analysis, no integration of regional plans, no numerous alternatives to evaluate, no conceptual plan. Under the agricultural lands, the object is to, "recommend conservation programs," "encourage," "consider," "provide out -reach," are the words used under its policies. Again, the "implementation of identifying," "addressing" and 'creating a conceptual plan," were not done. There is a section that is called Integrated System of Open Lands Policies, on page 28. Under the intent there is no "action" verb, but the goal is "identify the regional, inter -connected system of open lands and trails that extend beyond the Corridor." We could have had a conceptual plan of that if the same "enthusiasm" was used in this section as was in the Transportation Section. The Board held a discussion on limiting the discussion to what Council asked the Board to focus on. The question was raised about suggesting deletions to the whole document. The Council only asked staff to look at the two areas, transportation funding and phrases on development. There was no direction by Council for other deletions. The decision was to focus on the two issues, and let any other Member make their comments for the record on the Plan as a whole. Member Craig commented that she specifically put this together so the Board would not have to go through the Plan piece by piece. She wanted to pull together for staff why it bothers her and why she feels like it is a transportation plan; and what she feels like needs to be deleted or the other sections brought up so it is a balanced Plan. Member Craig feels that there should be conceptual plans in all sections or the transportation conceptual plan should be taken out. What has been done there is an implementation of some of the goals, and that has not happened in any of the other sections. If this is just a "vision" plan, which is what the Board has been told, as far as Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 11 the Design Standards and the natural areas. First we set the "vision" and then we implement it. There should not be any transportation implementations going on. The Plan does implement the roadway. It has been modeled, analyzed and different scenarios have been looked at, and you came up with a roadway. That is what bothers her. Under the transportation element, the issue was identified and a solution was created. Until the other two sections are brought up to that level, she did not feel that this Plan is anything more than a transportation plan with a design "vision" and an open space "vision". Member Colton concurred with Member Craig. He did not believe that the proposed deletions come anywhere near addressing the concerns that were raised by the public, or the concerns that he has. For exactly what Member Craig stated the open space natural areas are a "hope for" to be done sometime in the future plan. The Design Standards are even in a separate document; which as we go around "crowing" about how everyone is approving the Plan, he did not think anyone, with the exception of Windsor that has approved the Design Standards. To him, the design standards and the open space are the "core" of getting a lot of what the citizens want. Without the open space element being achieved, and without the locational standards, with the setbacks in the Plan, the clustering concepts, the '/+ mile setback for residential, the inadequate 80' setback for other uses in between activity centers, discussion of the size and extent of activity centers — the transportation plan is there, and even if you delete the funding, it implies that we are putting in a parallel road system. The communities have not put together a plan that preserves open space or that has approved design standards that would even do the clustering or the setbacks. That would be required if the "vision" is to be attained. It is not enough to just delete the sections that are in there, and he concurred that pages 36 — 42 should be taken out, and that Council vote on the transportation plan at a later time, when we know whether or not we are getting some of the open space goals that we wanted, or if we are getting cooperation from other communities on design standards, which are an integral part of the Plan. By approving the transportation plan, when the others are in doubt, is building a road system without insuring that any of the other things that the public wants in the form of separators, open space and setbacks will actually occur. He thinks the transportation plan needs to be done at the same time as the other elements, and not in this document. He did not think that it would at all disturb the "vision" that is shown in the Plan. Member Torgerson respectfully disagreed with Members Colton and Craig. He felt that the roadway system that is envisioned is important and a pressing need to illustrate because we see developments occurring that would preclude or at least make more expensive this parallel roadway system in the future. He feels that there is a real hurry Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 12 - he feels that we need to get something going. We saw in the traffic modeling how beneficial the parallel roadway system was. He was a fan of that emphasis. Member Torgerson disagreed with the part of the deletions that are being looked at in terms of "promoting development". He thought we should be promoting development and did not think that it was an inappropriate thing to have in the vision. He thought that we should also be promoting open space acquisition and also a logical roadway system. To just say that a lot of people were upset because we are promoting development and we should pull it out of the plan, he disagreed with that. He feels that it is appropriate to promote development in the right places and where it makes sense, and that was what the Corridor Plan was all about. Member Carpenter felt that they have been over this several times and the Board needs to come to a decision. She felt that this was a historic, very visionary thing we did when we pulled together the region. Obviously the Plan does not have everything in it that she wanted in the Plan, there could have been more in it. She felt that staff did a really "fine" job of pulling together all of the different entities that needed to be pulled together and come up with a "vision." It is not final, and it doesn't say this is what it will look like, but it does say something that we have not said before with all the communities along I- 25. It does say that we all have the same "vision," which we are all going to try to go to the same place and these are the things that we all can agree upon. She felt that this was something that she can support and she felt comfortable. Some of the things that were being cut out like "promoting development" — where we are promoting development, you could say it the opposite, we are trying to "limit development" to the activity centers. What we are really trying to do is "promote development" in the activity centers, and the other way to say it would be that we are trying to "limit development" to the activity centers. Member Gavaldon agreed that this is an important document and he would be supporting it and stand behind it. It is a way of managing growth. This Plan, he believes, with the deletions and staying focused to it, is important to have. He could live with some of the wordsmithing, but he did not want to kill it and gut it out. He favors the deletions and would like to reinstate "long term viability" and he would also like to reinstate the "frame work for development", aspect because he feels that it is a message to development as open space, and what ever we do with land. He would support the deletions. Discussion was held on what motions and how the comments were to be sent to Council. Member Colton would be abstaining from the vote due to frustration with fellow Board Members. Member Colton felt that the Board should vote on the proposed deletions by Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 13 staff, the proposed deletions proposed by Member Craig and the Plan as a whole. The majority of the Board disagreed. Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the deletions staff has suggested to the Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would be voting for the deletions, but in no way did that mean that she endorses the Plan, or feel that these deletions go to placating the small group of people that we are trying to placate. She feels that the point was totally missed on this. She would say that from the way the Transportation Board and the Natural Resources Board has responded that these deletions — Council might think that this is going to placate, but she does not think it will at all. The motion was approved 4-0 with Member Colton abstaining from the vote. Project: Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment. Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 217 acres of property located on the northeast corner of Timberline and Drake Roads. The property is currently zoned T, Transition. The Structure Plan designation for the property is a combination of Industrial, Urban Estate, Low Density Mixed -Use Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial Center. The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to change the configuration of the Industrial designation, remove the Neighborhood Commercial Center designation from the site, and to slightly modify the boundary line between Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed Use Residential. The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property to a combination of LMN, MMN, I, and UE to correspond to the requested Structure Plan Amendment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 14 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Structure Plan and Zoning Map in accordance with the applicant's request under the condition that habitable structures may not be developed within the wastewater treatment plant's 1000 foot buffer area. Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this project came to the Board on September 17, 2001, in which the Board made a recommendation. The applicant and staff met several times after that meeting to try and resolve some of the unknown issues. Staff recommend to the applicant after changes were proposed, that they take that proposal to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to going before Council. Mr. Jones reviewed the plan that was recommended on September 17, 2001 by the Planning and Zoning Board. That plan had a 33.4 acre piece of Industrial on the northern corner of the property; it had a 63.51 acre LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood piece along Timberline up to the current line where the Structure Plan designates between Urban Estate and LMN. It had 25.67 acres of MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood in the same configuration that the applicant had proposed; and 62.39 acres of Urban Estate and 32.5 acres of RC, River Corridor (which corresponds with the 1,000 foot buffer area). A map is attached. Mr. Jones stated that Member Craig had asked for the Council minutes from when the property was originally annexed. He was not aware until now that staff and the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended the zoning as seen on the diagram, back when it was being annexed. Council did decide that they did not want to support the proposed zoning at that time, and instead wanted the property designated as T, Transition with the exception of a small piece that was zoned Industrial. The remainder of the property was zoned T, Transition. At that time the property was found to be in substantial compliance with the Structure Plan. The new proposed plan has a different configuration than what was seen on September 17, 2001. It has 85.58 acres of Urban Estate, 25.52 acres of MMN, 94.09 acres of LMN and 12.28 acres of Industrial. The Industrial designated in the northern comer of this site is 33.4 acres. Within that 33.4 acres, exists the Jessup Farmstead, and the applicant is proposing to just have the farm site itself as the Industrial zoned land, and the remainder of the 33.4 acres become LMN and become part of the adjacent neighborhood to the south. He stated that staff and the Historic Preservation staff support this proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Jones reviewed for the Board the other proposed changes from September 17, 2001 with the LMN, and UE zoning designations. (A map is attached) Mr. Jones handed out a matrix, which shows the proposed acres, density and number of units for the current Structure Plan, the proposed Structure Plan Amendment, and what the difference would be (Exhibit 1-A attached). Melinda Bartlett, James Company gave the applicant presentation. Ms. Bartlett talked about the purpose of the Structure Plan. She reviewed the history of the project for the Board. Ms. Bartlett stated that two of the proposed changes to the Structure Plan were approved at the last hearing, the elimination of the Commercial designation and the reconfiguration of the MMN boundary. Tonight she wanted to focus on the other two that seem to be of the most concern, the reconfiguration of the Industrial boundary and the adjustment of the LMN and UE designations. First, she wanted to address the third request for reconfiguration to the Industrial boundary. The city has asked the applicant to answer two questions: 1. Why is the Structure Plan in need of this proposed amendment? The city staff and Historic Preservation has asked the applicant to preserve the Jessup Farm, create a buffer as well as a compound around it. They feel that they need to adjust the Industrial boundary to provide adjacent land uses that are more compatible to the Historic Jessup Farm Homestead. They are also concerned with the access. If the Industrial zone moves forward where it is currently located, the only full movement access is located down by the Spring Creek access point; so the Industrial zone will only have right -in right -out access, or Industrial traffic will be pulled through the residential neighborhood. 2. How will this amendment promote public welfare, support the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan? They believe that this does promote all of the above and support City Plan. Because of the adaptive reuse for the Jessup Farm, they believe that it is better suited to be next to a low -density residential neighborhood than an Industrial use. Staff has also illustrated for the Board the adequate Industrial zoned land within the city of Fort Collins. The fourth request is for the reconfiguration of the UE and the LMN boundary, and the same two questions are asked. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 16 1. Why is the Structure Plan in need of this proposed amendment? The existing boundary does not follow any logical layout. It does not follow terrain and does not follow a logical road alignment. They believe that the purpose of realigning the boundary is to follow their conceptual road alignment and create a better defined neighborhood and separation of land uses. 2. How will this amendment promote public welfare, support the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan? They believe it does because it focuses on creating better integrated neighborhoods. By slightly decreasing the UE and increasing the LMN, they are providing a greater opportunity for mixed neighborhoods, and provide both single and multi -family residence. The UE limits large lot single family or cluster development, limiting 1 to 2 housing types. The LMN land use allows them to have a better mix and balance of housing types. One of the city goals is to provide a more compact development. They believe that this location north of Sharp Point Road, along the railroad as well as next to the Industrial Park, is a prime location for LMN densities. To reduce the number of residents next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, they have adjusted the UE boundary from the last proposal slightly north in support of the concern. They have also agreed to the 1,000 no build, no habitable setback, or easement. They believe that this is a true benefit to the public. Ms. Bartlett referred to the Comparison Summary (Exhibit 1-A) and would not go over the numbers again since Mr. Jones already had. Ms. Bartlett talked about their design intent and went through their vision boards. Dave Johnson, representing the Johnson Family spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they were in support of the James Company and Downing Thorpe and James. He stated that as the city grew around their farm, it became time to sell. They had a lot of people come forward and try to buy the land. They chose the James Company because their proposal was by far the best, as well as both companies being Colorado companies. They wanted to keep things close to home. He stated that the James Company is also preserving their family heritage as well, and they feel like they have given up a lot in the areas where they are doing the historic preservation. They feel that some of the small changes that they are suggesting are justified based on what they have given up. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Johnson stated that he was at the meeting a month ago and the sewage treatment plant was brought up at that time. Speaking for his family, all of a sudden they have been taken 32.5 acres out of their family land. He wanted the Board to know that the sewage treatment plant has never given them an offer for that land. It was made to sound at the previous meeting that they tried to buy the land from them, and that certainly was never the case. There was some discussions about 10 years ago, and no offer was ever brought to them. Then all of a sudden, they find out that 32.5 acres of their land is no longer developable land. They were never notified of that and they were not happy. Mr. Johnson addressed the smell of the sewage treatment plant. The days that you can smell the sewage treatment plant are very few. Those are the days with the upsloped wind. Jim Postle, President of the James Company spoke to the Board. He stated that when he made his proposal to the Johnson family a year ago, he presented to them what he thought was a vision for a unique piece of property. What their goal is, is to get to the planning stages. He did not think it was in anyone's best interest to argue over the exact location of a line. This project is important to the city and to the citizens. Also, as a community developer, they need to be able to have a wide range of products for a 1,000 home community to make sense. Mr. Postle also spoke about the economics of the project and how important it is. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Craig asked about the Sharp Point access to Drake. Planner Jones replied that at this point it is still conceptual. Member Craig asked about the preservation of the Jessup Farm, which is in the Industrial zone. There was a recommended 500 foot buffer, which would be the majority of the 33 acres or 20 to 25 acres, which was discussed at the previous meeting, and why has it now been reduced to 12 acres. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation responded that staff has hired some outside Historic Preservation consulting to help identify what sort of a buffer would be best recommended. What they came up with for the two historic sites was that they would be looking at a maximum 500 foot buffer. Once the 500 feet is reached, then it could be adjusted back depending on different scenarios. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 18 Member Craig asked if when the project moves into the ODP and PDP stages, is there the possibility that because the industrial is being proposed as 12.28 acres that they would have to look for part of their buffer in the LMN zone. Ms. McWilliams replied that at this point, the LMN and Industrial zone they are proposing, the entire historic farmstead site plus all of the buffer is included in the Industrial zone. Member Craig asked to see a map that shows the valley wall and how the proposed Structure Plan configuration works with the wall. Planner Jones provided a site map that showed the contours of the valley wall. He stated that it goes north and slightly west but was not in configuration exactly with the valley wall. Member Craig asked if the valley wall was included in the Poudre River Study Corridor. She asked if that plan ever came to fruition. Clark Mapes, Advanced Planning Department responded that when the Structure Plan was done, there was a multi -departmental staff team that did a preliminary assessment of the Poudre River Corridor. There were some ideas generated regarding the land uses that led to discussions throughout City Plan, which led to the Structure Plan and the Zoning. The valley wall was included in the Poudre River Land Use Study that was done internally. He stated that the Urban Estate designation was proposed for the lower southeastern part of the area. Member Craig asked about the southeast corner, and because of the fact of the topography of this land, what would the need be for the stormwater and would it be of significant size, so zoning the land RC, but letting them use it as their detention would serve two purposes, as it did at Rigden Farm. Planner Jones replied that they will be using it as detention regardless of the zone district. Zoning it RC may not solve the problem; it may minimize the intensity of development that the zone district would permit. It does not guarantee that there might not be a habitable structure, there could be one structure per 40 acres in the zone district. The only thing that prohibits that from happening would be a condition on the zoning. The applicant is willing as part of their application to put a covenant that they will not put any habitable structures in the 1,000 foot buffer zone. City Attorney's office has asked that a condition still be put on the zone to not have contractual zoning. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 19 Planner Mapes added that a big difference between the RC, River Conservation zone on the Rigden Farm side and here is that on the Rigden Farm side there was no need, with the LMN zoning there to have any units be transferred out of the area that are in the RC zone. Where as on this side with the UE, the developer can take the overall gross density and cluster that on part of the site, keeping part of the site open. One way that the sewer buffer area is not a total loss from the developers perspective, is that if it is zoned UE, to the extent that there is room to do the clustering on the remaining land, there may be some benefit to just zoning it all UE. Then, using the intended clustering ability in the zone district, take some of the units off of that area, which won't have the structures, built and cluster them on some of the other UE land. If it is zoned RC, there is an overall reduction in the gross density from what the Structure Plan had shown and what could be done if it is all zoned UE. Planner Jones added that one of the other differences is that the current Structure Plan designates it as UE, whereas in Rigden Farm, the applicant proposed to put that corner in RC and they proposed the Structure Plan change and it was supported through the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. Member Craig commented that we have had a change in conditions which makes it very appropriate to change the Structure Plan. As she stated at the last hearing, putting a condition on a zoning is very inappropriate. Chairperson Gavaldon asked the applicant to take the recommended configuration that the Board approved on September 17, 2001 and taking the matrix they provided to them, calculate the units, and compare it to the current proposal. Chairperson Gavaldon asked staff to give feedback on the information Mr. Johnson reported to the board regarding the wastewater treatment plant. Brian Janonis, Water Resources and Treatment Manager replied that they have been talking to the Johnson's for quite a few years about purchasing the corner of the property. He did not think there was anything in writing, although it is his understanding that in working with some realtors and previous developers that have submitted proposals to the Johnson's actually had that as a buffer. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the state law and the 1,000 foot buffer and was very explicit about habitable structures and did it supercede zoning. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it is a regulation on the utility, not on the landowners around the utility. It simply says that a utility cannot construct or expand a wastewater treatment plant within 1,000 feet of habitable structures. The Board could approve habitable structures right up to the wastewater treatment plant. The result of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 20 that would be that the city's wastewater utility would have to go somewhere else to add plant capacity, or spend a bunch of money for odor control for the plant. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about putting a condition on the zoning of the RC district. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that as Planner Jones had mentioned, in the RC district there can only be one dwelling unit per 40 acres. If that dwelling unit would happen to be built within 1,000 feet of the water treatment plan, that would create a problem. Ms. Bartlett replied to Chairperson Gavaldon's previous question. She reported that there would be 125 units in the UE district. In the LMN district the range would be 317 to 508. In the MMN district it would stay the same 106 to 135 for a grand total of 548 to 768 units. That would be a drastic decrease. Discussion was held regarding measures that might be taken by the wastewater treatment plant to reduce the 1,000 buffer. Mr. Janonis stated that a study is being done for mitigating measures and would not be completed until next August and he could not say what the measures might be. Director of Current Planning Gloss wanted to clarify some information about the valley wall in regards to some questions that have been asked. He stated that it is a feature that is not shown on the city's natural areas map, which is an adopted component of the Comprehensive Plan. So we have no regulatory authority over the Poudre Valley Wall on this section of this property. However, about three quarters of the wall would be maintained in its natural state. The developer has chosen to do that and show it on their plans. Member Colton asked about the Cargill property and the compatibility of the MMN and LMN right up next to the boarders of a farm. How were they going to buffer for the farm? Director Gloss replied that was an issue faced city wide. Presumably being part of the urban area of Fort Collins, we anticipate that at some future date, the Cargill property will redevelop at some type of urban density. Member Torgerson asked about a clump of trees that are located in the LMN zone. Ms. Bartlett replied that is a 2'/s acre site and the Natural Resources Department has asked that they be preserved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 21 Member Colton asked for staff to explain why we are changing our minds on the Master Street Plan, to have it go up the wall as opposed to the way it was currently. Director Gloss replied that we would actually achieve both. We have connections to Drake and Timberline. From the standpoint of connecting the new neighborhoods to the entire community, it made sense for there to be additional connections to the arterial street system. There would be two connections down to Drake and the connection to Timberline. Staff has been working closely with traffic operations at the sequencing of connections to Timberline. The conceptual design that has been shown on the plans for this property does show that connection at Timberline and at a location that works for Traffic Operations and for connectivity. Member Craig asked Planner Jones to inform the Board what has happened since the September 17th meeting that would make them change their recommendation. Planner Jones replied that staff has discovered a workable boundary for the farmstead, which we did not have on September 17th. That boundary between LMN and Urban Estate has a logical place. Also, with regards to the LMN and Urban Estate, we have worked out a street pattern that works for the area around Sharp Point Drive comes through, and we did not have that on September 17th. The Urban Estate acreage on September 17th, the applicant proposed less than they are proposing now. They had responded from what they heard by the board. Member Torgerson commented that the Industrial change made sense, especially since the historical staff supports it. That was his biggest concern. Member Craig commented that the only reason she would rescind her September 17th vote would be for the Industrial. She had to trust staff as far as Industrial land etc. It does bother her that we don't have more Industrial land that is inter-spurced where someone could walk to it. And she felt that we were losing some of that here. Planner Mapes discussed the Industrial zoning in the Urban Growth Area. He stated that there are a lot of caveats on the numbers. There are various types of Industrial zoning. Some of the I, zoning is out by Anheuser Busch, held by them, with serious questions and issues about what that land may ever be available for. Planner Mapes reported that with the compatibility issues on this piece of property, this would not be a "true" piece of Industrial property. He also reported that the Industrial zoned property supply would be addressed at the time of the City Plan update. Member Torgerson shared his concerns on the LMN versus the Urban Estate. He worries about the sewage treatment plant. While we don't know if that is a problem, we Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 22 also don't know that it is not. When looking at promoting public welfare, that seems that if we don't have an answer, he did not think that he could change the Urban Estate. Member Colton felt that if he knew that there was an adequate supply of Industrial property somewhere else and we were just not pushing the problem somewhere else, but not knowing he could not be comfortable. Planner Mapes stated that to get definitive answers there would have to be a market study done. Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council that they not adopt the Structure Plan and zoning map that the applicant has proposed dated 10118/01. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Torgerson stated that he would be supporting the motion. The only concern he has about the proposed zoning is the LMN and its proximity to the sewer plant. He does not necessarily know that it is a problem, but we also don't know that it is not. In terms of promoting the public welfare that weighed against the argument that the applicant made that it offers better -integrated neighborhoods went away. That was his only concern with the proposed Structure Plan Amendment. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would also be supporting the motion for the same reasons as Member Torgerson. Member Colton commented that he supported the motion for the same reasons, and he felt that the Urban Estate would more appropriately preserve the valley wall. The motion was approved 4-0 with Member Carpenter abstaining for a conflict of interest. Members Meyer and Bernth were absent. Member Craig recommended to City Council that they approve the configuration that was approved on September 17, 2001, with the exception of the industrial zoning and that it be changed to what the applicant has shown on the 10/18/01 configuration. This was for the Structure Plan and zoning of the property. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Torgerson commented that he would not be supporting the motion because of his concern with making the 1,000-foot buffer RC. He felt that it amounted to giving undue preference to the sewage treatment facility that did not bother trying to purchase the property from the current owner. It seems that they dropped the ball and if was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2001 Page 23 zoned UE, then the current owner and the purchaser could have use of the land and cluster elsewhere. What we are asking this landowner to do is reduce the value of his land based on some future anticipated growth of the sewer treatment plant. Member Colton commented that zoning was specifically developed to keep incompatible uses away from each other. Although people like to disagree on this, no one is entitled to the highest and best use of their land. When the public good is involved, zoning is perfectly legal as long as they have a reasonable use for their land. Losing, so to speak, 30 acres out of several hundred is not "taking." It may reduce the value of the land some. It is all give and take. The motion was approved 3-1 with Member Torgerson voting in the negative, Member Carpenter abstaining for a conflict of interest and Members Meyer and Bernth were absent.