Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/19/2005Council Chairperson: Judy Meyer Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W)490-2172 Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Schmidt, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, Stockover and Lingle. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Wray, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Moore and Deines. Citizen Participation: None. Director of Current Planning Pete Wray reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ05-04 — Easement Dedication. 3. Resolution PZ05-05 — Easement Vacation. 4. #56-98AB Rigden Farm, 11th Filing, Spectrum Independent Living — Project Development Plan. 5. #18-05 Kingdom Hall Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 6. #13-05 Sunrise Ridge Annexation and Zoning. 7. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2005 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code 8. #16-05 Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning. Member Schmidt moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 through 5. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Sunrise Ridge Annexation and Zoning, #13-05 Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 10.34 acre parcel. The site is at 5101 S. Strauss Cabin Road located Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 2 approximately one-half mile south of East Harmony Road on the west side of Strauss Cabin Road. The requested zoning is Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The request requires an amendment to the Structure Plan Map and The Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan. Recommendation: Approval of the Annexation and denial of the Plan Amendment and the property be placed into the Urban Estate zone district. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that contiguity is gained along the entire west boundary of the subject site, which is shared with the east property line of the Willowbrook Subdivision (Observatory Village). Contiguity is also gained along the entire northern boundary, which is shared with the south property line of Brookfield Subdivision (Morningside Townhomes). The requested zoning is LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. This request requires an amendment to the Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir area plan. The Planning Department is recommending approval of the annexation, but is recommending denial of the plan amendment and we are recommending that the annexed property be placed into the Urban Estate Zoning District in compliance with the Structure Plan Map without it needing to be amended. - Member Schmidt asked if there were any density changes with clustering options or would it stay the same for Urban Estate. Planner Shepard replied that one of the later items on the agenda tonight is the Land Use Code Changes where staff is recommending a change to the Urban Estate Zone, where if you choose the cluster plan option, and this is only in the UE and it is where you have to reserve 50% of the land area as open you are not bound by the RL standards for setbacks, and you have a little more latitude in your layouts of your dwelling units and your garages. That won't go into effect until 10 days after second reading which is July 15 . Member Schmidt asked about the current clustering option. Planner Shepard replied that as the code is written now, the Urban Estate contains the cluster option and it only gives you the density that would be allowable if you did not cluster. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 3 Michael Chalona, Land Images and applicant for the requested annexation and zoning gave a presentation to the Board. He showed slides of the surrounding developments adjacent to this property. The property does meet all state statutes for annexation for its contiguity and all other statutory requirements that are required by the state. The annexation also conforms with the vision, goals and policies of City Plan. They are requesting instead of a LIE zone an LMN zone district and that does require an amendment to the Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Area Plan. Some of the requirements the project would have is that Rock Creek Drive would be extended through the property to Strauss Cabin Road. Mr. Chalona showed slides of the existing house on the property that sits in the northeast corner of the property. He showed slides of the Morningside Town homes and stated they were two stories in character and was in the 20 units per building range. It was a medium to high density project that abuts directly to the northwest corner of their property. The buildings were about 20 to 30 feet off of the property boundary. He showed a view to the west, which is Observatory Village, 2nd filing and stated that the units were a denser product than the single family and there are at least 3 units, a three plex building which has been used to transition from the higher density Morningside Townhomes into the single family. To the south is the Standifer residence and its northern property boundary is very close to their southern property boundary. He showed the view to the east and mentioned the new bridge that the County just put in on Strauss Cabin Road and the gravel mining that is out toward 1-25. He showed the stubs from Rock Creek Drive to the property and how it would enter the property. The current zoning of the property is Harmony Corridor to the very northern boundary of the property and there is LMN all along the western property boundaries and there is a little strip of land along Strauss Cabin Road that is designated on the Structure Plan as a potential UE designation. One of the reasons they are looking at the LMN, is because of the high density that they have in a large multi -family complex that sits directly to the north of them as well as the 2nd filing of Observatory Village. Mr. Chalona referred to the Fossil Creek Framework and the location of the site. He mentioned that the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch "nips" the corner of the project. He then showed the Structure Plan Map and stated that the LMN zoning runs directly to the west and the LMN actually wraps around the south of this strip of lots on the south side of Kechter Road and then moves into the potential designation of a LIE for the property. With the Structure Plan it is starting to create an enclave and isolating this little strip of property that is out there and nearly surrounding it with higher density. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 4 In Appendix C, it states that there are a couple points that have to be substantiated for City Council to approve an amendment to the plan. They do feel that the project does meet these requirements. That is one of the reasons that he is going to talk about the bigger picture as well as the smaller just individual lot of the change to an LMN zone as opposed to a UE. He thought that would demonstrate that the Comprehensive Plan does need to be updated in this area. Also, with the project being able to continue development going to an LMN zoning would definitely promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the visions, goals and principles and policies of City Plan and the elements which in this case is Fossil Creek. They do ask that the amendment to the Structure Plan Map be given approval. Why is the LMN zone district right for this area? When reviewing the zoning map, the Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Framework Plan as well as the written documents you come to understand that these are living documents that are meant to be only a guide to growth and they are meant to be changed and modified because of the city's growth dynamics from when something was adopted in 97, 98 or 99 to 2005, and things change and new parameters start to happen in the area as well as new developments. These plans clearly state that they are meant to be modified as circumstances change from the aging of the city. Mr. Chalona pointed out a couple of items that reflect that, that are taken from some of these documents. The introduction to Appendix C of the Comprehensive Plan states that "City Plan and the adopted plan elements which comprise the city's Comprehensive Plan are policy documents that are used to guide decision making within Fort Collins and the surrounding area. For the city's Comprehensive Plan to function over time, it must be able to be reviewed, revised and updated on an as needed basis." Even as the authors were putting this together, they realized that things are going to change out there and in other parts of the city and the Board has the ability to do that. Also in going with the LMN zone, they can easily accommodate and meet the first principle within the Comprehensive Plan. "Growth within all the city to promote a compact development pattern within a well defined boundary." Strauss Cabin Road and/or the bluff that follows along with Fossil Creek inlet ditch creates very defined and major elements that should create those edges for zone district, not just the fence line that is running down in between two fields when this was designed. Going with the LMN also allows them to create some transition from the higher density Morningside Townhomes and the Observatory Village, 2"d Filing. That allowed the urban forum to be achieved by directly directing the future development to mixed use neighborhoods and districts while reducing the potential for dispersed growth not conducive to pedestrian and transit use and cohesive community development. If we are sprawling this area out and just spreading all the houses out, it really contradicts what these policies and principles are trying to do of creating that compact urban Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 5 growth. We have very urban boundaries on the west and north side of this property. You could almost argue that on the south side on the house they built. They built the house on the property line and if they wanted to be in the middle of the lot, they could have built there, but they chose to build next to the adjacent property. Another excerpt from talking about the Structure Plan says that "the Structure Plan is a map that sets forth a basic framework showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. It is intended to serve as a blueprint towards the desired feature described in the Community Visions and Goals element of City Plan. As such the map is only intended to serve as a general guide for future land use decisions. It is not a zoning map, many of the boundaries on the map are generalized for illustrative purposes and in actuality may vary somewhat when applied on the ground as a result of natural and man made features whereas the result of varying conditions or circumstances." Again another very strong point that the Structure Plan is not meant to just sit idle and wait for the 20 years to turn around when you can go in and amend it. As situations come up or as you look at them in more detail, such as Sunrise Ridge, maybe the boundary of the fence line between the two fields is not really the best boundary between two zone districts. Maybe it should be Strauss Cabin Road or maybe the bluff that is slightly further to the east. With the LMN zoning, he believed that they would come much closer to achieving the key principles in the city Structure Plan as we stay as Urban Estate it is a much more sprawling and less compact development pattern and it is harder to make all the connections for pedestrians, the bike trail and being able to do a more interconnected transit system. They will still be within the growth management boundary and will be able to provide multiple means of travel. In the Fossil Creek Plan, it talks about that there is a clear distinction between the northern and southern parts of the management area. The north was looked at being developing in an urban density, whereas when you move to the south that is where you get into your larger lots to preserve your buffers from the reservoir and preserve wildlife corridors, things of that nature. When you move to the north and Sunrise Ridge is at the absolute north, their northern boundary line is the boundary for the Fossil Creek Area Reservoir Plan that it makes sense that this should be a more urban density project than an urban estate project. When you apply the boundary to the ground and really start looking at things, you walk out and take pictures and look at how everything flows out there, the natural boundary or edge for this urban development to the Urban Estate is the natural bluff and the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch. Both of those with the topographical constraints and the ditch create a natural and well defined edge from the urban development and the openness of what is now gravel pits and may at one point in time become open space or back into Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 6 some other kind of rural residential type use. As a very minimum it should be Strauss Cabin Road that is the section line. Is it really appropriate that a minor arterial is running right through and down the middle of an urban estate neighborhood? He did not think that was correct planning and that urban estate was never meant to happen with that type of traffic flowing through it. Everything out there really dictates from Kechter Road being an arterial to Strauss Cabin Road being an arterial and both of them running adjacent on the south end or directly through the middle of an urban estate neighborhood as well as the extension of Rock Creek Drive. A second contradiction to the UE zoning district is the exemption to Section 3.6.3 of the Land Use Code which dictates the connections into and between neighborhoods. It says that development in this district shall be exempt from those standards for street patterns and connectivity. Section 3.6.3 also states that "all local street systems should be connected into neighborhoods and other properties and stubbed to them if they are not developed at this point in time. That is something that the Urban Estate zone is not required to do. The existing roads that are stubbed to the potential UE zone properties is Strauss Cabin Road that is a minor arterial that bisects an urban estate neighborhood and is this really solid planning. He thought that type of road should be going on the outside of an urban estate type neighborhood, not bisecting it and cutting it in half. Secondly, if was a UE and was exempt from road connectivity standards, should a major collector in Rock Creek Drive be stubbed to the property? That is setting up an LMN zone for that project. There are two other drives Big Dipper Drive and Eclipse Lane that are currently stubbed from Northern Lights and that is the eastern most north/south roadway in Observatory Village and these are both stubbed to go right through the 7 properties to the south, dividing them every other piece of property. These two streets were clearly intended and approved to be extended into these properties and connect to Strauss Cabin Road. This type of connection is only intended for an LMN zone or an even higher density zone. Mr. Chalona referred to the staff report and the statement "typically LMN will be clustered around and integral with a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood." Morningside is that medium density mixed use neighborhood and the commercial that will occur with Harmony Corridor. It goes on to day the "its edges typically consist of major streets, drainageways, irrigation ditches, railroad tracks and other physical features." This just goes back to saying that is what LMN was defined for and you have that there in either Strauss Cabin Road or Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch and the bluff. One other item mentioned in the staff report was that the plan had not been amended since 1999 and both times the LMN and HC zoning districts were in place at that point in time. However, at that time, the Observatory Village project was just going into the review process. The Morningside Townhome project was approved in January of 2002. That occurred well after the last amendment to the Fossil Creek Plan. However, in that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 7 plan they were approving a medium higher density townhome project immediately adjacent to a project that would potentially be shown on maps as urban estate. Is that really a smooth transition and would that really be compatible with that type of neighborhood. He did not believe so, there needs to be some kind of transition through that project in which the LMN zone would allow them to transition from the higher density Morningside project. The next filing was Observatory Village, 2nd filing and that piece of property is located between the actual single family homes of Observatory Village and Morningside Townhomes and that project was approved in September of 2002. He stated that there were a few items that were brought up by neighbors. One is traffic and they think the extension of Rock Creek Drive will lessen the traffic between Sunrise Ridge and Kechter Road. Harmony Road and Strauss Cabin road is planned to be signalized as development occurs and the warrants are justified. Stormwater concerns, the owners of the Sunrise Ridge are in discussions with Village Homes concerning the possibility of sharing a small part of Observatory Village's detention pond. To date, Village homes has been very receptive and those are ongoing at this point in time. The LMN zoning would decrease the value of their homes. He felt the LMN zone district would create a much better financial position for not only this property but as well as all the properties to the south. Wildlife, this project would not adversely affect wildlife in the area. There would be a 100 foot setback from the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch that they have to work with. Right now there are only 9 neighbors that are possibly opposing the project, whereas Morningside Townhomes and Observatory Village have no problem with what is happening. In conclusion he would like to say that by zoning the property LMN a realistic transition from the denser HC zoning of Morningside Townhomes can take place. Also the LMN zoning of the property will be compatible with community goals and needs. The project can provide for a greater diversity of housing making necessary and much needed utility extensions and connections. Extend the much needed Rock Creek Drive to further the city's Master Street Plan and also be compatible with all of the surrounding city and county neighborhoods. PUBLIC INPUT None. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 8 Member Schmidt was unclear what was to the east of this property. Planner Shepard provided an image of that and replied that it is gravel all the way to western right-of-way for 1-25. There are four properties on the east side of Strauss Cabin Road between the inlet ditch and the road. Member Carpenter asked why the streets were stubbed into this property and what the thinking was when that happened. Planner Shepard replied that we knew that Rock Creek was the collector and that it is the only street of the three that are stubbed that is on the Master Street Plan. It seemed logical to stub it to the property line in anticipation of an extension over to Strauss Cabin which is the minor arterial. The other street stubs are internal to Observatory Village and we were not anticipating anything other than "some day" those street stubs might connect. It seemed like Observatory Village was too large of a property not to have street stubs to its east property line. Member Schmidt asked about the Structure Plan Map and its last amendment. Director Wray replied that the Structure Plan Map that was developed in 1997 has been several times since that time. This past year there was a major update and provided some changes and clarifications to the map. When the Fossil Creek Area Plan was adopted, those recommendations lead to an amendment to the Structure Plan. Aside from the amendment in 1999 to include the neighborhood commercial center and the medium density further to the west, we have not seen any other changes and development in the southeast area within this plan has been following the direction of the Fossil Creek Area Plan. Member Lingle asked for an explanation of the thought process at the time of the Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Area Plan in terms of putting this property into UE. Director Wray replied that the Fossil Creek Area Plan was a joint plan between the city and the County and when the land use pattern was developed for this area, it was very important that we looked at reducing density and intensity of development when we got closer to the reservoir. In addition, we received a lot of support for recognizing the existing county large lot rural subdivisions in this area. The seven lots that are mentioned as part of this proposal and we have a couple of other pockets of FA-1 existing subdivisions further to the west off of Timberline and Kechter Road. The Plan incorporates a mix of recognized existing development in the county as well as the future planned, more urban development in the Structure Plan. Within that, we recognize a variety of housing types and lot sizes. This edge that is being described is consistent with the plan and the original vision to have LMN and Urban Estate abutting Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 9 existing development. Further to the east is identified rural lands and we have not come up with that zoning district yet, we are still working on that and we anticipate that later this summer. That is described as coming close to the existing county zoning of FA-1, which is one unit per 2.29 acres. The quarter section to the east and down the slope from Strauss Cabin Road and the ditch is a combination of the upper part of the Harmony Corridor District and to the south and east of this area is part of the recognized rural lands pattern. When we talk about a transition or edge we did look at this series of lots as not only recognizing existing county subdivision, but providing the transition to the LMN to the west and the more open or rural development pattern to the east. Member Schmidt asked what if all those properties wanted to come together and request an amendment to the Structure Plan. Director Wray replied that was a good question and that if we saw support for that cluster of parcels coming together for a change, he thought that staff would be more supportive for a plan amendment. Vice Chair Lingle stated that the Board did receive two letters tonight that he wanted to enter into the public record. One was from Ken and Ethel Ashley and one from Bill anc Ann Standifer. In the Standifer's case they are not objecting to the change. Member Schmidt moved for approval of the annexation of Sunrise Ridge Annexation, #13-05. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council to change the Structure Plan to accommodate the LMN zoning and also moved to recommend LMN zoning for the annexed property. Motion failed for lack of second. Member Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council the Urban Estate zoning for the Sunrise Annexation. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Schmidt commented that she felt that this was a situation that we are looking at one parcel and it definitely would have a domino effect on the other parcels and she did not know if that was the intent. Part of the UE designation was to act as a buffer between higher density to the more urban areas and natural areas. She believes it is serving its purpose in this case. If there were community wide efforts so all the people in this Urban Estate zone said they did not feel this was appropriate and started the mechanism going and wanting it changed, she would feel more comfortable. Doing it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 10 piece meal like this would have an impact on the whole area with people having little say so in what happens to them. Member Craig commented that she based her decision on the criteria that is there a change in character that warrants the amendment. At this point in time she did not see any change beyond the process that we have gone through since the structure map was made in that area. She did not feel that this warrants an amendment at this time. Vice Chair Lingle found that there were strong arguments on both sides of the discussion. He thought that staff made a good presentation as far as what they are recommending. He also felt that the applicant made a strong case for why LMN would be appropriate. He tends to agree that it would be appropriate in terms of the natural boundaries and the street network that is in place. It seems like a very narrow dimension for that lot to try and develop under the UE. If Strauss Cabin Road was not there in that particular location and it was contiguous with more undeveloped land then the UE would make more sense to him. He though that LMN was totally reasonable. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Torgerson and Lingle voting in the negative. Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2005 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig suggested pulling out the items that they would like to discuss and then do a recommendation on the others. Vice Chair Lingle asked about Section 2.2.7 concerning the order of proceedings at the P & Z Hearings, number 681. In the actual Ordinance language it changes the order that the hearing is conducted but it did not include what was discussed at the retreat in which the Board would be able to ask questions of staff and the applicant prior to public testimony. He asked if the Board would be able to do that wherever they wanted to. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that is the way the Board has been operating. It would not be a bad idea to include specifically some language that the Board may, at the end of anyone's presentation, ask questions of the presenter. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 11 Vice Chair Lingle asked Board Members for any items they would like discussed. Member Craig mentioned item 691 or Section 3.8.27(f). PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council that they approved the Land Use Code changes as recommended except for Item 691. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Item 691 — Member Craig asked to add to the specific standard which is access under 3.8.27(f) and under access the staff is recommending that we put "vehicular access to the Reception Center shall be only directly from an arterial street so as to not add traffic to existing local neighborhood streets." She would also like to add the sentence "this access must be 75 feet from an abutting residential property line." The reason she would like to see that sentence put in is her feeling was that went they originally came up with the Event Center Standards, the purpose was to protect existing neighbors and she felt that when the first project came in with an Event Center that we did not accomplish that purpose, which was to protect the neighborhood. In looking at how we did not accomplish it, she felt we missed it with the access. We thought by saying "direct access" that would at least keep it off of the local streets, but she feels that we missed it because the access could still impact the neighborhood by being right along their fence line. Vice Chair Lingle asked if the 75 feet would be measured from. Member Craig replied from the edge of the street. Vice Chair Lingle asked if 75 feet was consistent throughout the Code. Member Craig replied not necessarily, she just looked at the fact that if you added another 50 to 75 feet, that would give enough of a set back that an appropriate sound barrier or mitigation could be put along it, so it would not impact the residential that abuts it. Planner Shepard commented that as discussed at the worksession, staffs intent was to clarify the standard in the manner in which we testified in public, and that was to simply clarify that we meant not to put more traffic on the abutting neighborhood streets. The whole concept here was that a 11 the supplemental regulations relating to small scale Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 12 reception centers are to preclude them from going into a platted subdivision. We did not intend with this Code change to significantly change the standards in such a way that the project that has been reviewed would then fall out of compliance. Staffs intent was to clarify the standard as to what staff really meant. We are on record; we testified this is really what we really meant. Vice Chair Lingle asked if they as a Board decided to approve this, it would not mean that staff has to embrace it when it goes to City Council. Planner Shepard replied that staff would report to City Council what the Board did and staff would also recommend that it remain as staff has written it. Member Craig asked staff what their feeling was as to not wanting to recommend this Planner Shepard replied as stated at the worksession, we have double frontage lots all over the city of Fort Collins and it seems like this is a micro management of one particular issue and one geographic specific location that does not seem to fit the pattern of the community. It seems like a pretty tuff standard and may be more appropriate for the fall. Maybe this whole thing needs to be looked at more comprehensively. We have not taken on the task of looking at the standard in this way. He would prefer that if we were to go back and look at the standard in the way it is being suggested, that we go back and look at the map that was prepared when the 11 parcels were identified in the city and the growth management area that could be eligible for Urban Estate that met the access and acreage minimums for a small scale reception center, and then go back and look at those properties and see what we are doing. Member Craig commented that she felt that no matter what the land configuration is that it is appropriate that the access not impact abutting neighborhoods. If a piece of land comes in that would be hard for them to be able to meet this criteria and the neighbors next door say that they don't have any problem, then they and the neighbors could come the to Board with a modification and it is a non issue. If the land is residential next to this and is vacant, she still thought that this is appropriate because a developer that does come in and wants to put in development, could even have land value decreased because the access is put on the edge of the property. Member Lingle felt that this would be a particularly hard sentence to request a modification to because anything short of 75 would difficult to prove equal to or better than. Member Torgerson said there were two other criteria for modifications other than hardship or equal to or better than. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 13 Member Torgerson thought that it was bad policy to make code changes relative to a single project unless you see an over arching problem throughout the city and he doesn't. I f fact, he did n of s ee a p roblem on t he F eatheredge p roject a nd t he d rive access that we are talking about has and had the potential to become a public street, which, in his opinion would have much more impact on the abutting neighbors than a small access drive to an Event Center. He does not think it is broke, so he would not be supporting adding that language. Member Carpenter agreed that another look should be taken at this in that we have adequately protected the residents from encroachments. She thought it should be looked at in a more comprehensive manner and she would like something to be in the Fall Land Use Code changes. She would not be supporting this at this time either. Member Schmidt felt she would also like to discuss this in more detail in the fall. Member Lingle thinks that he could support the language that staff has added at this point in response to what their direction was, but would also like to see a more comprehensive discussion in the fall. Member Torgerson recommended to City Council approval of the change in language to (Item 691), Section 3.8.27(f) as drafted by staff. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 Member Craig moved to recommend to Council to direct staff to open the Performance Standards for small scale Reception in UE and retook at some of the criteria to make sure that we are meeting the purpose which is to protect neighborhoods. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Torgerson voting in the negative. Project: Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #16-05 Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 147.83 acre parcel. The annexation includes three separately owned parcels, one of which is an existing privately owned Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 14 airport. The site is located north of East Lincoln Avenue, south of East Vine Drive and west of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along portions of the west and east property lines. The east property line abuts the Dry Creek Subdivision. The requested zoning is Employment. This request requires an Amendment to the Structure Plan Map and East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Recommendation: Approval of the annexation. Approval of the amendment to the Structure Plan Map and East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Approval of placement into the Employment zone district. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson excused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this was also a Structure Plan and Sub Area Plan Amendment. In this case the Sub Area Plan is the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. He stated that this was a request to annex and zone 147.83 acres. This is the Downtown Airpark and includes three separately owned parcels; one is an existing privately owned airport. The site is located north of East Linclon Avenue and south of East Vine Drive and west of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along portions of the west and east property lines. The east property line abuts Dry Creek subdivision. The requested zoning is employment. This request requires a Plan amendment. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Structure Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and placement into the Employment zoning district. Mr. Shepard reported that staff did not hold a neighborhood meeting for this item, but neighborhood meetings were held by the applicant last year and the Board has minutes of those meetings. Member Schmidt asked for an overlay map. Mr. Shepard replied that the intent of the map is to overlay the employment zone visa via the Framework Plan. The Framework Plan showed some employment to be allowed on the south east edge of the annexation area. The Board wanted to see what it would look like if the employment area were to extend to the north and to the west. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 15 Interim Director Pete Wray explained that the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Overlay Map was identified in the event that the airport sold and was suitable for redevelopment. On the southeast portion of the airport property, staff identified when the East Mulberry Corridor Plan was developed, an extension of the employment designation extending northwest from Timberline and East Mulberry up into the airport property on approximately 30% of the airpark property with future street connections. The lighter pink color on the remaining airport property extending northwest is I, Industrial. The total property is about 147 acres. The breakdown from the overlay map is approximately 57 acres within the designated employment and the proposal is to extend the employment up to the remaining portion of the property which is about 90 acres that is shown within the Industrial area. Planner Shepard added that the answer to the question at the worksession is more than 1/3 of the boundary of the annexation parcel is shown on the overlay framework as being employment, 57 out of 148 acres. Member Craig asked if staff had looked at the area — her concern is that we are running out of vacant industrial land in that area — and come up with where there is some vacant industrial land to make up for the 90 acres that the Board is considering changing to employment. Director Wray replied that when you look at the overall East Mulberry Corridor Plan area, there were two primary areas that were designated for either existing or future planned industrial. There is a portion just on the west side of 1-25 up and around the Centennial Livestock area and in and around the immediate airport property and the larger industrial airpark area north of Highway 14 on up to the north side of the airpark property. When staff was looking at this proposal, we recognized that there is still sufficient lands for heavy industrial use within the East Mulberry Corridor area and also citywide. In looking at the buildable lands inventory that Advance Planning helped develop this information, we have approximately 964 acres of industrial lands within the Growth Management Area, a little over 15 to 20 year supply. When you combine employment and industrial in the Harmony Corridor we have about 2400 acres, about 700 of that is constrained be it with wetlands or topography or other factors. Buildable vacant lands, we have about 1700 acres of a combination of industrial and employment which includes portions of the Harmony Corridor, and with a build out anywhere from 2018 to about 2024. Staff is also finding with this assessment is there is less of a market for heavy industrial manufacturing and more of a need for trade and service jobs, which would make up a large share of the economic base. When staff looked at this, even though we are potentially losing approximately 90 acres of Industrial, we are gaining, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 16 with the redevelopment of the airport, 147 acres of E, Employment which includes light industrial and more mixed use development. Member Ingle asked if the trade and service jobs could all be accommodated in the Employment District. Director Wray replied that they could and there was quite a variety that is allowed within the employment designation. Troy Jones, MTA Architects gave the applicant presentation. Mr. Jones presented another version of the overlay map showing the framework overlay plan in the southeast corner of the annexation area designated as employment and showing an extension that would include the northern portion of the annexation as well also zoned employment. Mr. Jones discussed the difference between industrial and employment zoning and the difference in the number of jobs allowed was higher in the employment district. Mr. Jones discussed housing/job balance within the zoning district. Mr. Jones then discussed the sensibility of putting these higher intense uses nearer to downtown rather out on the Interstate. Mr. Jones handed out a matrix and reviewed the two zoning districts and what is and what is not allowed between the two. He also discussed the secondary uses allowed in the employment zone and what those uses were limited to. Member Craig stated that a concern of hers was the neighborhood meetings that the potential applicant had and the different scenarios that were shown continue to show 40% residential and she asked that that be addressed because they were adding residential to something that was to be completely industrial. Mr. Jones replied that a lot of the residential that is being proposed would be in a mixed context so that the ground floor would be a primary use like offices or a long term care facility for example and then either one or two stories of residential above that primary use. The zone does not restrict that type of residential that you can do as long as it is over the top of a primary use. Anything that would be above the 25% secondary uses of purely residential would be in the context of a mixed use residential. He stated that the north end of the project would be where they intend to do any of the purely residential uses. Member Craig asked how they were going to handle keeping from losing the existing industrial services that are there at this time by putting in so urban and mixed uses. Mr. Jones replied that the issue did come up at some of their neighborhood meetings. They were going to locate a boulevard in the center of the property where the runway Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 17 currently sits. You would have buildings fronting the boulevard fronting on both sides and the side that backs up to the industrial park those uses would be more sensitive. The residential units would not be looking out onto the industrial. Member Schmidt thought that we were looking at a different kind of employment situation in mixed use dwellings and she wondered if the intensity of jobs really does not "retch" it down more to being more equal with the industrial level if you are looking at that kind of scenario. Mr. Jones replied that there is an overlap in the two zones, so if you were to do the most intense thing in industrial and the least intense thing in employment it could reverse from the argument he made, but the point he was making was, in general, an office is a fairly common use and they are intending to have a substantial portion of that in their plans and so at least an intensity of jobs per acre scenario, there is more opportunity in employment to have more jobs per acre. The Board is right in the fact that there is no guarantee that in zoning it one way or the other that one will have more jobs than the other. Robert Dean, property owner in the airpark and owner of a helicopter business adjacent to the airport property that is being considered. He stated that there are three heliports along the south side of the airport that are not affected by this transaction. The airspace over the property will still be used for helicopter traffic and it represents a fairly high concentration of helicopter traffic. The main concern with that is the airspace will continue to be used and the development that is built replacing the airport needs to be thought of in the context of how these operations will continue to impact them. The specific concern that he has is he is located at the northwest end of the airport where the residential portion is being considered. Based on the website that the developer has put up, he has some retirement village designation, some multi -story buildings and some spread adjacent to his heliport. The obvious concern there is how all of these people in this retirement village are going to enjoy a helicopter coming into land or take off early in the morning or at night as they conduct their operations. He thought he had not heard anyone raise the issue, but the airport is disappearing, but the airspace is not disappearing. The airspace is not a local matter, but a federal matter. Their operations will continue and the residential portion of this development is nothing more that a conflict with their operations. Twenty five percent is a lot of acres and multi- story is a lot of people. He thought that this is considered in terms of zoning of how that is going to affect them in addition to the people who will be living there. This issue has also come up with the Fort Collins Loveland Airport. The airport is disappearing but the need for airspace is not and he thought that was very important in the consideration of any plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 18 Member Lingle asked if flight paths for helicopters were regulated. Mr. Dean replied that flight paths for helicopters very unregulated and it is up to the developers where they put what and he thinks it should be a matter of concern for the city. Member Stockover asked if they regulate minimum flight height over residential. Mr. Dean replied that you have to fly so you do not present a danger to the public. Member Stockover asked if they were regulated by noise. Mr. Dean replied no. Member Stockover asked how they compete with the airplanes that are taking off and landing. Mr. Dean replied that their instructions are to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic and they communicate with the fixed wing traffic to enter the flight paths when it is appropriate. Member Stockover asked in terms of the current configuration of the airport, they are not restricted to fly anywhere as long as they are not in the path of an airplane. Mr. Dean replied essentially yes and they could also do that if it was a housing development. Member Carpenter asked what sort of regulations are there as to where you can put a heliport. Mr. Dean replied that it is local and county regulations. Federal is basically only interested in airspace. Industrial zoning is one of several zoning districts that allow them. Michael Hansen, owner of Century Helicopters and Aviation Technology stated they have been at the Fort Collins Airport for 25 years. They now have a facility at 2001 Airway Avenue which is right on the corner of Airway. They own two lots on the south side of Airway and they also own a lot that abuts the airport property. Century Helicopters is in the business of providing helicopter maintenance services to customers in about 15 western states. The customers include the US Department of Energy, the US Department of Homeland Security and local officials. They don't own or operate any helicopters, but they do helicopter maintenance. They are the owners of an FA approved helipad and it has been on their property for a number of years. The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 19 approach and departure from that helipad is dependent upon the land to the north of the helipad being the airport property being free of obstructions in order to provide safe departure and safe approach to their helipad. Being in the business of maintenance, they do a lot of test flying, so there are helicopters coming out of heavy maintenance, overhauls and major component replacements where they will get into a helicopter and take it off from the pad and their departure and approach is over the airport property and they need to make sure that they have a safe departure and approach in the event they do have some kind of failure as to not endanger people on the ground. Therefore, building large buildings and tall trees and the Planning Board needs to consider the fact of the safety of the individuals on the ground in the area that is going to be rezoned as well as the individuals in the aircraft. Mr. Hansen commented that Aviation Technologies is a manufacturer of aircraft parts and he thought that the Board's approach to looking at the number of jobs per acre is a little short sited in the fact that it is going to take two to three jobs to replace the manufacturing jobs if they indeed had to move due to the salaries that you are looking at and the service sector that you are talking about. In a sense you are going to end up with a net gain of zero by the time you have to have two to three times as many people in this area versus industrial and heavy manufacturing where this area could be used for. Member Lingle asked from his point of view, how would I, Industrial zoning protect his interest better than employment. Mr. Hansen replied that the buildings tend to be single story buildings for industrial use and it also gives more flexibility on the zoning as well as reducing the number of conflicts in the future with homeowners and potential residential development in the area. Member Schmidt asked where his property is located. Mr. Hansen replied mid way down the runway. It is where Airway dead ends at a T. Member Schmidt asked if they own enough property at this time to go up and down with their helicopters that they current own. Mr. Hansen replied that their heliport is adjacent to Airway Avenue; they have across the street as well as the lot that abuts the airport property. Member Schmidt asked if he thought there was enough property in the existing area to keep expanding his business. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 20 Mr. Hansen replied that it would depend on the Board's decision tonight as to whether they would have to relocate. They recently expanded their building two years ago in order to accommodate more business. If this does get built up into a residential service, employment zone and there were a lot of conflicts, they would have to look at moving their business. Member Carpenter stated that we already have LMN zoning to the north where they say they are now using to fly. How did he think that was going to affect them, would this really be that much more of an effect than when houses go in there? Mr. Hansen replied that when it is that far out, they can adjust their flight path. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Lingle asked if the heliports are a zoning question or and Overall Development Plan question. Planner Shepard replied that he thought it would be both. He did not have a precise answer to his question. Member Schmidt asked if we have any standards for buffering that would help this situation. Planner Shepard replied that the recent code change was with residential, but Section 3.5.1 is the general compatibility standard of the code that would come into play here. Mr. Jones responded for the applicant and he stated that they were willing to accommodate as need be. They are willing to try and figure out the best type of arrangement that would have the least amount of conflict. They are planning to have the extension of International Blvd. shown on the plan and come straight through the middle of the property and front their buildings onto it so that would leave the possibility from a design standpoint for the rear property line to have a minimal development intensity because they are pushing the buildings up to the new street. Member Schmidt asked about the Lemay Avenue realignment. Mr. Jones reviewed on a map how that alignment would be reached. Member Lingle asked about the series of meetings that were held with Advanced Planning and up until this testimony, he thought that when the airport closed, all airport related functions would go away also. Was the continued operation of aircraft related Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 21 activities and these heliports part of the discussions that were held with Advanced Planning in terms of their support of E, Employment? Planner Wray responded that he was part of those discussions and staff is aware of the heliport operations when staff was making the decision to support the extension of the employment. We have other heavy industrial uses in addition to the heliport operators that are within this basic larger industrial park. We are fully aware of the difference between these uses as they come together. When staff heard about the airport option, we were contacted by a lot of the fix wing operators and also the heliport owners over that time and we tried to help, assist and coordinate any transition or transfer of those existing businesses to the Fort Collins Loveland Airport. It was not a give that every business would move or relocate with this option. About a year ago, staff made a decision to amend the East Mulberry Corridor Plan further to the west with the change to MMN on the southwestern part of the airport and agreed to provide a notification to future residents in that area as part of a navigation easement notification adjacent to the airport. We have a heliport landing site at Poudre Valley Hospital right next to residential, so a similar situation where you have landings and take offs right in the middle of our city. The details need to be addressed when we get into a more detailed development review. Member Carpenter was also surprised by the heliport problems until they heard from citizens. She is concerned that they did not know about this issue before. How do you mitigate noise from a helicopter that is taking off right over you? She does not think it is a possibility or physically possible to do. She feels blind sighted by this that they have not had a chance to look into it or maybe ask the right questions. She suggested continuing the item until they could get further information. Member Craig wondered what more information they could receive beyond what the Board received tonight. The point being that it is an Industrial Park right now and we encourage Industrial uses and now we are telling them to go to the Fort Collins Loveland Airport and give all their money to Loveland. This bothers her when someone stands up there and talks about the expansion of their heliport are we are talking about good paying jobs when talking about Industrial. Beyond that concern, she is looking at all the secondary uses and the uses you cannot have in Industrial that we will be losing. There are a lot of secondary uses that will be used on residential and that leaves very minimal room and she sees that we are losing business that are good paying jobs. We have taken Industrial, which would allow all the secondary uses, many as a Type I, and said that we are going to turn this into employment which is going to become a lot of residential. This was planned, a market strategy was done and an incredible amount of residential was put in this whole corridor to accommodate jobs so the need for more residential, she cannot even come up with a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 22 justification for that with all the LMN we have put into this corridor. She sees a problem beyond the heliport and at this point in time, she questions what they could clarify to help with a continuance. Member Lingle has a concern that might be helped by a continuance. We have the benefit of this understanding now of heliports because the two gentlemen chose to come here tonight and talk to the Board about it. How many other possible uses are out there that the owners did not come tonight? There could be other potential hazardous material issues with residential development that could be significantly less of an impact on continued industrial development and we don't know what those are. It would seem to him that it would give staff and the applicant the chance to come back and convince the Board one way or the other that those concerns are not relevant or can be mitigated before the Board makes a decision without all the information they need. Member Carpenter thought the Board did have an obligation to look at the health, safety and welfare of the community. She questions whether or not she is comfortable putting a lot of residential right where we have helicopter operations going on. She did not know if that is safe and it is information that she would like to have before she can make a decision. She would also like to know what else is out there that they did not know about. Member Stockover in his opinion what else is out there is not mobile versus the helicopter. That is the distinction that we have something that readily moves and everything else is virtually stationary with the exception of traffic. He agreed that the Board does not have all the facts regarding the helicopters as in size and trips per day to make a decision. Member Craig moved to recommend annexation of Airpark Village. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Schmidt recommended to City Council that the original East Mulberry Corridor Plan not be amended and that the zoning of this parcel would be industrial. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that he was not comfortable supporting the motion tonight just because he feels that the applicant deserves the opportunity to convince the Board that E, Employment is workable in this scenario. He thought they were able to do that with staff to the point that staff brought a recommendation to the Board for that. That is the reason he felt a continuance would be beneficial. He would not support the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 2005 Page 23 The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Lingle voting in the negative. Other Business None. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. These meeting minutes were approved December 8, 2005 by the Planning and Zoning Board.