Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/22/19910 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES • April 22, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chairman Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman. Chairman Jim Klataske was absent. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Ken Waido, and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 25, and April 1, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - Knickers (Louden Creek Golf Course) - Preliminary, #10-91; Item 3 - Arapahoe/Mountalnridge Farm - Amended Master Plan, *55-97A; Item 4 - Pineview PUD, Tract C - 2 Year Extension - *76-SID; Item 5 - Buderus Annexation and Zoning, First Filing - 011-91A; Item 6 - Buderus Annexation and Zoning, Second Filing - 011-91A. Staff pulled item 3, Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm, Amended Master Plan for discussion. Member O'Dell moved to approve consent items 1,2,4,5, and 6. • Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. AKAFAIIVE/MUUNTAINRIDGE FARM - AMENDED MASTER PLAN. CASE_ *55-87A Ted Shepard, project planner gave the staff report on the project Eldon Ward, applicant, Cityscape Urban Design, stated rather that make a presentation he would respond to the Board's questions. Member O'Dell stated that at their worksession on Friday, when they looked at this, several Board members expressed concern about the proposed location of the neighborhood convenience center. Her main concern was that alot of kids that go to Webber Jr. High and the elementary school will want to go to the convenience center and that would entail crossing an arterial, Harmony Road. She would like to see it closer to the schools or at least on the other side of Harmony Road. Mr. Ward responded that on the old master plan, it was on the other side of Harmony Road. The reasons that it moved across the street, working with the staff over the past couple of years on the exact alignment of Harmony Road, Seneca and working around the existing Fort Collins/Loveland Water District line that runs through there and also parcel 1-C a number of types of uses that they have looked at in there, which are things like patio homes or possibly some retirement housing. They have typically had people who want 9 or 10 acres for that kind • of a program. With the realignment of Harmony Road, if the convenience center remained on the other side of the street they were down to about 6 1/2 or 7 acres. It was also the common they specify patio homes rather than condos or apartments which would add to the traffic congestion in that area. • Member O'Dell asked Mr. Ward to reply to Ms. Godshalks concern about the patio homes, she saw on the site plan that it was proposed to be ten dwelling units per acre. Mr. Ward replied that 10 was the maximum. Member O'Dell asked where in the scheme of things did he see the timing for that to be built. Mr. Ward replied that if any thing happens there in the next three years it would be patio home, retirement housing, four to six unit per acre type of project. They have not seen anything that would make them think a high density multi family market would be viable there in the next three years or so. It is a large project and is hard to tell how long it will take to build out. Staff has expressed concerns about the extent that they were lowering the density and not keeping a bigger mix of housing types in the area. The owner always wants to keep that flexibility also. He thought that the preference to do a patio home, retirement housing type of project there but not knowing the timing and with the desire to keep the ability for a bigger mix of units. They left the alternative for 10 units per acre. Member O'Dell asked what kind of buffering there would be between Regency Park, would it be green space, fences? Mr. Ward replied that it would be a combination of both. It would be proportionate to the density that goes onto 1-C. Member Strom asked for the sketch to be entered into the record. His concern with the • convenience center was mainly with access and not boxing ourselves in in the future. If we have the potential for the access according to City standards, he did not particularly have a problem with that location. Member O'Dell wanted to reiterate her concern that even if you have the convenience store farther away from the school because they are still going to go there and having several elementary school children it is a really attractive place to go. Kids go to school early, kids stay late after school and there was not always going to be a crossing guard there so she was not sure if the Board was to go so far as to tell you to move it but warned to be cautious and hoped he would take that into consideration. Mr. Ward suggested that obviously they wanted to get the master plan approved and because of the Woodcraft Homes plans to move ahead with their project was for them to approve the amendment to the master plan and they could go back to the owners and all the parties involved and revisit that question and report back to them again next month with the preliminary plan if further amendment was valid or perhaps they might be a little bit more prepared to explain why it isn't. Member O'Dell asked if anyone had talked to the principals at Webber Jr High or Johnson Elementary about this issue. Mr. Ward replied no they have not. Mr. Shepard replied that he had not either. Mr. Ward replied that there was not a representative from the school district at the meeting Is either. Mr. Ward replied they had met with Carol Agee about getting students to and from the elementary school but they had not spoken directly with anyone at the Jr. High. Member Carrol asked if they could approve the master plan with the exception of parcels 1-F and I-C. Mr. Peterson replied that they could do that, they would just be facing an application in a month or so to finalize the issue. He did not see any reason they could not do it. Member Strom stated that they were more or less in agreement that it was appropriate that there be a convenience center parcel at this intersection. One way to go would be that they could approve it with the particular corner of the intersection to be designated as a convenience center to be resolved in the near future. Ken Waido, planner, stated that their will be a neighborhood shopping center in this section eventually. The neighborhood shopping center, if it develops anything like the existing neighborhood shopping centers, will have a grocery store other types of shops and probably some fast food restaurants. In total, that shopping center will be far more attractive for the students to visit than a convenience center would be because a neighborhood shopping center will probable contain some fast food restaurants. The convenience center would be attractive to students in that way and whether they live on either side of Harmony Road they will get to the convenience center. Overall the neighborhood shopping center would be a much greater draw for the students in the area. Mr. Ward stated that one of the positive aspects of the Guidance System was to make the decisions when you have a real plan to decide upon. What if we were to just label the other side of the street as an alternative site with language on the plan that the chosen location would be determined in conjunction with a number, of things including the Jr. High School demand and he was assuming that, if it was the Boards desire, that it would be a better location on the other side of the street that the fact was it hurt them on the point chart. Now they were within 3/4 mile of the neighborhood center and if it has a convenience center then they have a problem on the point chart. He could label the other side of the street as an alternative location and put a requirement on the master plan that the final location determined, consider the factors that the Board has brought up tonight. They were kind of dealing in a vacuum until they had a specific set of users in a convenience center anyway as far as which side of the street it should be on. Member O'Dell stated that on the issue of patio homes versus multi family homes, she felt fine about the density mix that they had determined as 10 dwelling units per acre. She also felt confident that when a specific plan comes to them that they would look at buffering and set backs depending on the density that was proposed at that time. Member Cottier stated that the suggestion of showing an alternative location for the convenience center was good. According to all of their guidelines for convenience centers, this was an appropriate location for it. They were not saying take it away, but the concern was safety in crossing Harmony Road. She thought Mr. Waido's point was good but the neighborhood center that was a half a mile there probably isn't going to happen for a long time. Probably long after the convenience center is in. Member Cottier moved for approval of the amended master plan with the notation suggested by Mr. Ward that an alternative site for the convenience center be shown on parcel 1-C. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Mr. Shepard asked if they wanted the applicant to come back next month and address this issue. • Member Cottier stated she would include that in the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Member Cottier abstained from participating in this item due to a conflict of interest. Ken Waido stated that two items were still on the table for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board. They deal with the Riverside Shopping Center area of the East Side Neighborhood Area Plan which is shown on the map as essentially the whole Riverside Avenue frontage from Mountain Avenue on the north to just south of East Myrtle on the south. What was colored on the map was the areas that were suggested to be looked at and potentially rezoned to limited business within the East Side Neighborhood Plan. It consists of 58 properties, 57 of them are zoned C-Commercial and one property at the end of East Oak is currently zoned R-H, High Density Residential. The second item was the property at 426-428 Maple which is on this map as part of the West Side Neighborhood. Everything in color was currently zoned C-Commercial. At the present time it is recommend for various zonings according to the West Side Neighborhood Plan. On February 25th the Board did reach consensus and vote to recommend 5 components of the East Side/West Side Neighborhood Rezoning project to the City Council in terms of review of those 5 components, the first one was the creation of three new zoning districts, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C- B and the placement of new zoning district boundaries within the neighborhood; the rezoning of the Riverside Shopping Center area to General Business; amendments to the R-M and R-H • residential zoning districts; amendments to the B-L and B-G zoning districts; and expanded coverage of the R-C, River Corridor Zone. Riverside Avenue has been an issue since the rezonings were first brought to the public back in June of 1990. Staff developed several options for the Boards consideration in looking at the original recommendation for Limited Business as contained in the East Side Plan. That zone was first suggested in the Plan because it does limit uses that would be allowed in the area. It could eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for land use conflict within the neighborhood and the second reason was that the B-L zone contained screening and landscaping requirements that were currently absent in the C-Commercial zone. In staffs review of that, it seems the second reason was just as important as the first. That there was a desire on behalf of the neighborhood to see something done in term of better landscape treatments, making the area more aesthetically pleasing. The options for consideration, Staff has added a new sixth option, there are seven total. 1. Leave it zoned commercial. 2. Rezone it to Limited Business. 3. Leave it zoned C, but place a PUD condition on it. 4. Leave it zoned C, but require certain uses to go through some type of special review or PUD review processes. 5. Rezone it to Limited Business but add certain Commercial uses into the B-L. zone. 6. Leave it zoned C-Commercial but require screening such as the types of screening . requirements that exist within the Limited Business zone. Walls and landscaping to be placed into the area. 7. Delay action, include the Riverside Avenue area in the rezonings of the Downtown for conformance with the Downtown Plan. The second area for discussion tonight was the Kennedy property at 426-428 Maple Street. This is a C-Commercial zoned area. Staff has also developed some options for the Board to consider related to this property and in terms of summary: first, leave the area zoned C-Commercial; rezone the area to N-C-M as called for in the East Side Plan; the third option is to leave as C but place PUD conditions on the property; the fourth option was to leave it C but add zoning conditions that would identify certain uses, or by requiring other uses to go through a special review or PUD process. In terms of a Staff recommendation, we have been meeting with property owners from both these areas since last June and have been listening to their comments and concerns. Staff recommendation to the Board at this time is that in relation to the C-Commercial on Riverside, staff is suggesting that the area remained zoned C, but several zoning conditions placed on the area to require a landscaping plan and screening with solid wood walls or fences for commercial properties that abut residential uses or abut residential zoning districts. They believe that these conditions represent a minimum change of zoning requirements and would be in conformance with the intent of the policies of the East Side Neighborhood Plan for, Staff and the property owner have been negotiating back and forth the various land use restrictions on the property. The letters of correspondence between Staff and the property owners have been included in the Boards packet as background material. The Staff recommendation at this time is to leave the property zoned C-Commercial, but place a zoning condition on the property which identifies certain uses which would be allowed on the property as a use -by -right and then require other uses to be approved through the PUD process. Those uses are in detail in the Staff Report. Member Gorman asked if the right-of-way problems have been resolved with the people who own businesses on Riverside. Mr. Waido replied that they had addressed the right of way concerns at the last meeting and would ask Assistant City Attorney Eckman to restate his comments concerning the requirement to dedicate right of way, the requirement for the City to purchase right-of-way and under which development condition or circumstances that we could obtain right-of-way as part of the development process and under what type of development or circumstances the City would have to pay for right of way. Mr. Eckman replied that the City would have the authority to require the dedication of right- of-way sufficient to cover all the impacts that any given development would impose upon the City street system. Typically in the City, all the local street requirements, dedication, the City obtains it without paying at all. As you get into arterial streets it depends upon the impact of the development. You have to kind of take it on a case by case basis to see if the development does has placed enough of a burden on the streets to justify the requirement be dedicated and then if it has not the City would have to purchase that property from the property owner. Mr. Tom Myland, property owner, stated he wanted to thank Ken Waido for all his work and effort that he worked with them and the neighborhood. He stated that they wanted to support Option 6. Mr. Chris Zell stated that everyone would have preferred that it be left alone as C-Commercial but they do understand what the plan is trying to accomplish and they put slot on Ken all the way'kround and when he sent the recommendation out, they felt that he was trying to be fair that they would have to be careful if the Board were to follow this option and rezone Riverside • Avenue to B-L by adding commercial uses into it. They would have to be very careful because B-L zone did exist elsewhere in the community. By just adding uses in the B-L zone, we would also be adding those uses into the other B-L zone properties within the community, which may not be of similar circumstance and situation as Riverside Avenue is. Member Strom stated they were talking about two slightly different things. He thought what Mr. Eckman was talking about was conditioning a B-L zone for example with particular uses for particular property as opposed to Ken, which was talking about changing the uses approved generally in the B-L zone. Mr. Waido replied thats what Option 5 was, to add uses to the B-L zone. Mr. Eckman stated that he misread option 5, he had no problem with broadening the uses in the B-L zone but not as just one particular condition. Member Strom stated that brought him back to his question to the PUD approach to adding in uses. For example if you assign B-L zoning to the property and gave it a PUD condition and then established a PUD plan with a spgcific list of approved uses. Would that not be an approach to doing it. Mr. Waido replied his initial reaction was no, because the PUD process in Fort Collins not only deals with the site planning characteristics that a traditional or classic PUD approach uses but the PUD option in our City also opens up the uses and there are absolute criteria which allows the Board to look at the proposed use for conformity to adopted plans and all the point charts which also deal with the location of uses. If you were to put a PUD condition on the property and then begin to list uses that would be allowed under the PUD you begin to defeat and really . muddle some of the really major components of the Guidance System which is to look in combination of the use question and site planning question under a single application. Member O'Dell asked if there was a possibility that the railroad tracks on the northeast side of the street might be vacated and that side of the street be developed in the future. Mr. Waido replied the possibility is there but did not know what the probability was. There has been discussions between the City and the railroads for fifteen years about rerouting tracks and rerouting trains and so forth. It may happen in a month and it may happen in the next thirty years, we just don't know at this time. Member O'Dell asked if it did happen and we keep this as a C-Commercial zoning and there are alot of uses as use -by -rights, was there any kind of look at traffic generation of a particular site or any kind of limitation on right -in, right -out, full -turning movements. Mr. Waido replied that the City Traffic Engineer did have the authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and did have the authority to limit access to properties in order to protect the health, safety and welfare. On the other hand the City cannot deny access to properties. Under the C zone without any site planning or PUD conditions, there was no look, those are uses -by -right and one of the underlying assumptions behind zoning is the placement of the zone on a property with all the uses listed and those uses are compatible with each other and are appropriate in the area in which you are placing that zone. If the eastside tracks were to be removed in the C-Commercial, the City would be essentially saying that the east side of Riverside is also appropriate for C-Commercial uses and the area can handle the impact again if things happen that effect public health, safety and welfare, the Traffic Engineer can limit left turns or put medians in streets and those types of things to control traffic, eliminate parking, put in traffic control devices. Member O'Dell stated even though she has been concerned about putting undue hardship on people there right now, she thought their job as the Planning and Zoning Board was to do some planning and she thought that they needed to look at the future and think about what was going to happen if the tracks are vacated, what was going to happen if Riverside carries alot more traffic. If we don't have some kind of way to at least look at a redevelopment of the area we are talking about. She would be inclined to have a new zoning district developed what would allow them to look at high -intensity uses or high -traffic type uses or high -noise level type of uses that would be disruptive to the adjacent neighborhood. Member Carrol stated that we might have to take another look at this. He was concerned in looking at the uses by right in the C-Commercial zone that really they permit just about anything that might want to go along Riverside. We would only be looking at landscaping if that happened. On the other hand he certainly did not believe that it was necessary for them to review certain changes of uses out on Riverside when an existing building turns into something else that takes the same kind of parking and there is no change in the building. We do have some major uses out there and there was really nothing to prevent a person or a company acquiring a large tract of land, demolish everything and come in with a use that we would not be happy about and at that point wish that we would of had the chance to review. It seemed that in certain cases we would want to review those and other cases we would feel that not review was necessary and others the Option 6 would be all that was required. He was pretty hesitant with the long list of everything that was allowed in the commercial zone and say that was what was going to be allowed with simply a landscape review. On the other hand he was not prepared at this meeting to go and pick and choose a single use and have a vote or a consensus on these uses. Member Walker stated he understood that there was a certain stigma attached to calling it a B-L zone as opposed to a C zone. He agreed with that, B-L was not what they were looking at here necessarily. He thought there has been a certain amount of mis-information about the whole what is a PUD, what does it take. There was always this unfounded fear that a PUD was the worst thing that could happen. From his perspective its become business as usual in alot of things that we do in the City. In a sense slot of the PUD's in a sense in terms of how much does it take to develop a PUD, it is a function of intensity of use. If you are doing something fairly insignificant that would have to come in for a PUD could literally be drawn up with the assistance of the Staff and wouldn't be that odious of a process. On the other hand if it is a very intense use that was going to have a major impact, then it will and it should be very well thought through and designed. This fear of a PUD is based on &lot of information that was not fully correct. Member Walker moved that they direct the Staff to review the Riverside Corridor with the intent of continuing to keep this In the C-Commercial zone, however, creating a list of uses -by - right and the PUD process for other uses. The Intent was to work with the property owners, and try to continue to make this a give and take process where there is plenty of opportunity for input. Member Carroll seeoaded the motion. Member O'Dell asked Member Walker if it was his anticipation that even within the C- Commercial district there would be imposed some landscape type requirement as suggested by staff in option 6. Member Walker replied yes that was important. Member Strom wondered if staying with the C zone and modifying it so heavily if we wouldn't be better off with a different zoning district. Member Strom asked about outdoor storage. Mr. Waido replied the prohibition would be under use 10, warehouses and enclosed storage would be allowed and therefore outside storage as a primary use would not be allowed on the property. Outside storage as an accessory use with one of the primary uses could be allowed. Member Strom stated that he had some concerns about that given the fact that we were in an area except for this parcel, we are trying to restrict and upgraded the uses. Member Gorman asked why the Kennedy property could not be regarded with the same zoning as Riverside. Mr. Waido replied that the Kennedy property was unique when compared to other properties in the City, particularly Riverside that her question addresses. Riverside is a major arterial street within the City and carries a heavy volume of traffic and the nature of the area, even though it is still more than 50% residential, you do have some heavy commercial uses, the whole character of Riverside is different than Maple Street. Maple is a local street, it does not carry a high volume of traffic. Other than the fact the both properties are zoned C-Commercial, there are very few similarities between Riverside and this particular property. Member Gorman asked if the multiplicity of uses were compatible with Maple Street. Mr. Waido replied that in their opinion yes, and that was what the Board had to decide that the uses that we were limiting this property to will be compatible with the neighborhood. Compatibility in this case can be defined as being of equal impact or less impact than the current auto repair uses. Member Walker stated his concern was outside storage. He was wondering as was proposed in the Riverside Plan where a change of use requiring a landscape plan might be appropriate in this situation. Given the fact that it is surrounded by a large residential zone, one of the ways to mitigate some of the effects would be through landscaping and screening. He was wondering if we might want to add that condition that we were discussing with the Riverside Plan. Mr. Waido reminded the Board that a change in use would kick in the parking code requirement which would require landscaping within the parking lot and perhaps Mr. Kennedy might talk about the particular geometry of the lot and the existing building and the potential for outside storage and where it could be located which may be of concern. Mr. Kennedy stated one correction was the address is 424 not 426 and the other was 428. Their plans for those two pieces of property was to improve them anyway. They have already added trees to the property. Between the two buildings they had plans of building a barricaded fence in there to separate the neighborhood from the business. The reason they did not do it was because the neighbor who lives there approached him and asked him not to build a fence in there because he is growing some berries in there that he uses as an income for his retirement. He sells the berries. He agreed not to block the sun on those bushes back there. But if this is the Boards wishes to have the fence in there, they would put the fence in there. As far as landscaping goes, they are in the process of doing that anyway. They do want to improve the properties, like they have said in the past, they do live in those neighborhoods and they do want their business to look appropriate for the City. Finances have been such that maybe they are a little slow, but they were working that direction. They went a little further with the concrete work, they did put a handicapped ramp on the corner rather than the regular step off. The buildings wire in the process of eventually redoipg the inside. It was not his desire to store on the outside of the buildings. He was putting pressure on the tenants who are renting from 428 right now to eliminate all of that type of thing they have going over there. Those things will be changed, those are their plans. The City is going to pave the alley, their plans there was • to approach the City on the alleys at maybe extending a little bit of asphalt right up to the side of the building. They would pay extra for that. Mr. Ed VanDriel, 1212 West Mountain, has no vested interest in this or any other commercial property that is included in the West Side Plan. He stated that he was not aware of the fact that the actions last month were final except for the two areas that were included in tonight agenda. He submitted a letter a week ago to the Planning Department and asked that it be included in their packets addressing two concerns. One was the concern of changing any zoning from business or commercial to any type of residential property. He felt that it was taking away value from the property owners and did not think the City had the right to do that without condemnation proceedings. The other concern was for residential areas. He visited with two different members of the Planning Staff before last months meeting and asked about situations where there are non -conforming uses now from the standpoint of set backs. He was assured that it would not be a problem. As a former member of the Planning and Zoning Board he knew that they do not get any feed back after the fact to see what the result is. At least in one case, since that action was taken, a property owner wanted to build an addition on to his garage and attach a garage door opener. When he went to get the permit, he was told he could not get it because it was a non -conforming use. He had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to have it approved before the permit could be issued because there was not sufficient side yard set back. He felt that there should be something in writing, to assure those of them in the West Side Area that don't meet the set back requirements so they want to make a change of any kind, that they have to go through the same process of going to the Zoning Board of Appeals before they could be approved to make the change. Member Walker expressed his appreciation for the process that went on for the Maple Street Properties because it is slot easier than dealing with one person rather than 58 but he appreciates the fact that both the policy as stated in the West Side Plan was being addressed here and in an appropriate manner. They have set up a list of uses and he felt O.K. with that and that it was a give and take process between the City and the owner and there did not have to be an imposition of something. Member Strom asked Mr. Waido to explain what the landscaping requirements were for the parking ordinance. Mr. Waido replied that 6% interior landscaping is required. Member Strom asked what triggered the consideration. Mr. Waido replied any change in use. Member Walker stated that it just dealt with the parking, not the outside storage. Member Strom stated he shared that concern. Mr. Waido replied that he did not think they were talking about outside storage as a primary use definitely is not allowed, but again there could be some outside storage as an accessory use. They could specifically state that there was no outsideatorage allowed, or require landscaping for outside storage even as an accessory use. Member Walker moved to approve the proposed change where they have a C-Commercial zone with 13 uses permitted as outlined is the staff report and also include language to the effect as shown on page 6, paragraph 2a and 2b that any use that has outside storage as as accessory use would require a landscape plan submitted. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. None. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 114 WILLOA` : anise AR J wish of Woodcraft homes who was going to be doing a large portion of the single family and GT Land, Arapahoe Farm Inc. that they keep 10 acres on the other side. That was the logic in moving it over there. They looked at it in terms of how access would work and it was always awkward at the corner of an arterial on a collector, particularly when you are trying to avoid the back fences of single family, which is a major difficulty on a major street, much less the corner of two. They also had about a 3 and 1/2 acres difficult triangular area there and from the site planning point of view it did not seem to make sense to shift that over. They had also have gotten some input from people who have had the opposite logic that they just as soon have it a little further from the Jr. High as to not make it so attractive to the kids in that age group. With the considerations they had to deal with, they showed it on the southwest side of Harmony. Member Strom stated his concern had to do with the access. Looking at the parcel and the configuration of the parcel, they had given away the property line that runs into that intersection. He was concerned with the fact that it appears to him that they have with the median on Harmony, they have a right-in/right-out on Harmony and all they have on Seneca was a stretch of maybe 50 to 75 feet maximum which is too close to an arterial to put a curb cut in for Seneca access. Mr. Ward replied that the graphic was an amendment to the old plan that was done before the final geometry was done on Harmony and Seneca. Actually in working out that geometry they made sure that they had a little over 200 feet of frontage on Senecca from Harmony south. When he talked to Mr. Shepard on Friday afternoon, after the access question came up, he went back and looked at some of the things they had done for access. He did pull out a little concept that they had done of the convenience center on how access would work, it has not been formally submitted but would share that with them if they Board was interested. They have met with the traffic department on that and they have the alignment of Seneca and Harmony as such that the main full movement access would be off of Seneca about 200 feet south of Harmony Road and then a right-in/right-out off of Harmony into the center. Member Strom stated he was concerned that there was something of that nature in the file or a note on a plan something to the effect that they were going to deal with that issue. Mr. Ward replied that if was not specifically noted on the plan but we could add a note but that was part of the discussion with staff when they were finalizing the geometry of Harmony and Senecca. Member Cottier asked if there was any thought to putting the convenience center at the southern tip of parcel I-B. Taking it out of that single family area instead of 1-F, because that would solve the problem of kids having to cross Harmony to get there and regardless of how people hope it is further away so kids won't go there, the kids will go there. Mr. Ward replied there would be a crossing guard at Seneca and Harmony with there discussions with the school district. Mr. Ward also replied they had looked at that but that corner does lend itself a little better to single family lot lay out because it is more squarish and less pointed. They have a preliminary plan in the process and Woodcraft homes is looking at beginning their first cul-de-sac in that area, and when you do detailed plans the single family worked a little better. If they determine that they need to move the convenience center to the other side of Harmony Road, it would be easier to work it into 1-C rather that 1-B. Jan Godshalk, 1692 S. Julianna, Loveland stated they were having a house built in Regency Park and wanted to recommend to the Board that they specify on the multi -family area that both ways and this should buffer the neighborhood as well as clean up Riverside. Everyone who was at the meeting, if they could not leave it C-Commercial, would prefer Option 6. • Member O'Dell asked about the requirements of the B-L zone, if those were to be applied to the area. What sort of landscaping requirements are they and because the B-L zone does not permit the kind of intensity of uses of the C-Commercial zone, will the landscaping requirements outlined in the B-L zone be adequate to buffer the adjacent residential area. Mr. Waido replied that the specific language is included in the packet under staff recommendation, 1, 2a, and 2b. In 2a, any change of use shall require landscape plan comply with 29-526 (LDGS). The same criteria for a landscape plan that Staff would review under a PUD. The criteria is the same or under this zoning condition the decision that Staff would have to make all the criteria in the Guidance System would apply to Staff's evaluation of the site plan to determine whether or not the landscaping was adequate to buffer the proposed uses. Member Walker feels that Option 6 did not meet the intent of the City policy as outlined in the East Side Plan. Clearly the intention as stated in the Plan, the reason for the B-L zone was two fold, one was to provide some landscaping and screening requirements. The second was to limit the uses because of potential conflict in the neighborhood. The fact that there is Commercial zoning right up against residential zoning. Given the intensity of the area and the way the lots lie, he thought both of those need to be addressed. He felt that there was two issues here, not just the landscaping, which he felt was important, but certain uses in a commercial zoning that he did not think worked there. He thought that the type of intensity of use would be detrimental to the neighborhood. That was the point of view of the City policy. He has a problem with Option 6. You have a commercial zone that allows quite a number of options. Then you have a B-L zone which limits it fairly significantly and he felt that there perhaps is some middle ground that could be reached here because while he felt strongly about the idea of reducing conflicts because of the zoning, perhaps B-L is limiting it too much given the • nature of the area. He thought there should be something in between the B-L and C- Commercial. He thought this issue should still be addressed as outlined in the East Side Plan of land use conflicts given the zoning. Member Gorman stated she agreed with Member Walker, we need to get somewhere between B-L and Commercial. Member Strom asked Mr. Eckman that with Option 6, were we conditioning an otherwise standard zone and if so did he think that it was legitimate conditioning, or were we in effect creating some sort of hybrid that we might have trouble with. Mr. Eckman replied that they were adding a condition to an otherwise standard zone. You could do that from the stand point of simplicity of administration of the zoning code throughout the City, it may be more desirable to create a new zone that has its own uniform conditions rather that have C-zone with these conditions here and C-zone with those over there, although that is not unknown in the City. We do have zones in the City where we sometimes impose a PUD condition and other parts we have it zoned where we don't impose that condition. We are familiar with that although not with the precise details that is being proposed with this particular condition. Member Strom asked that given the fact that we do at other places in slightly different ways, was he comfortable with it from a legal standpoint. Mr. Eckman replied yes he thought they could structure something that won't be illegal condition. It may be more desirable to have a separate zone. 11 Member Strom wondered about the possibility of instead of conditioning a C zone, if they were to go with a PUD condition on the property but in effect establish defacto PUD plans for the properties within the area. In other words, we would at the outset establish a list of uses that we felt were appropriate either for individual properties or for the properties as a group and perhaps establish some threshold at which a change in use might trigger additional landscaping requirements or beyond that there might be some threshold at which we would trigger a full PUD review. He realized that alot of the property owners and some of the Board members were concerned about the cost of a PUD condition. He wondered about the possibility of trying to at little or no cost at the front end, establish what the PUD conditions were, barring some major change in use or redevelopment of property. Did that sound as a middle ground approach. Mr. Waido replied that in anticipation of this, he did prepare a comparison of uses allowed in the B-L and B-G and the C-Commercial. These were the uses that were specifically listed within the City zoning code at the present time. The uses are in the first column on the left side, the next three columns are listed B-L zone, B-G zone, and C-Commercial zone. There was a key to the uses, a by -right, and by -right means a list of uses allowed within the zone without any public review. Then there was an asterisk, by -right which means that use is not specifically listed within the zone, but would be allowed without public review because it is similar in nature to a previously listed use within the zone or to a use that was listed in a previously listed zone within the zoning code. Then there was the PUD, which means that that use would only be allowed within the zone through the PUD, public review process. Several notes also apply to the comparison table. Member Walker stated that this addressed the concerns he had and he has these concerns about potential conflicts and again if you want to say drawing the line he was not sure where it would be here. He appreciates the fact that there is a large number of property owners out here and we probably end up with the whole list if they end up with a vote. He was a little frustrated by the fact that there has been a long involved process of developing a plan which resulted in City policies in the East Side Plan. It was very clear what needed to be done, he believed what he was hearing now was they did not want to be apart of that. He just could not accept that. He felt like there had been a process here and there is a City policy established and he felt very strongly that their task as a Board member was to implement that policy and to him putting up landscaping and screening was not implementing the policy. There needs to be a line drawn on this list somewhere. For a start he was not sure whether they needed to run this through another loop again. He did not pretend that he did not know where to draw the line but he was frustrated with the fact that if they run this through another process like they tried the last month, they may get the same answer that they have now which is, "leave us alone" and that was not acceptable to him, it did not fit the City policy. He was stymied where to go with this and that was where he stood on this issue. Mr. Eckman pointed out one provision in the code that authorized them to impose conditions that section. That was section 29-45. It says that they could impose reasonable conditions related to the use for the purpose of preserving and promoting the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and the public generally, and to encourage and facilitate the orderly development of the City. Conditional zoning shall not be utilized to authorize uses not authorized in this chapter. To him that would suggest that Option 5 for example, was intended to mean that you could zone a piece of property in a permissive zone and take away uses, but you could not zone a piece of property in a more restrictive zone and add uses. So that option of zoning to B-L and adding uses would be more risky business than zoning it to C-Commercial and taking away some uses. Mr. Waido replied that it had been common practice in the past. You can definitely add uses to the B-L zone, you could add uses to any zone. The caution that Staff had on Option 5 was Member Walker replied he could go either way. If calling it a Commercial zone had a certain • attribute to it then it was fine or if they created a new name was fine. That could be part of the exploration of how this was defined. The intent was to create something that creates a list .of what could be done on a property and the rest being a PUD. Motion passed 5-0. 426-428 Maole Street Mr. Waido stated that the Staff recommendation was to leave the property zoned C-Commercial but place a condition on the property. The condition would list certain uses which would be allowed by right on the property and then requiring any use not on the list to go through the PUD process. Member Walker asked how the list was developed. Mr. Waido replied that it went through a process where the Staff had met with the property owners to discuss the concept generically. Staff felt comfortable with the approach to the point that they asked the property owner to develop a listing of uses that they felt should be allowed on the property without further review. Staff received that letter and responded to that letter making certain suggestions for changes, they then talked again with the applicants to negotiate certain uses that Staff had initially suggested should be deleted. Particularly the plumbing, electrical, and carpentry shops be eliminated and also the assembly, packaging or the installation of gauges and electrical and similar equipment and devices that they initially suggested be deleted. The applicant met with Staff and Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator and discussed the kinds of impacts of these uses on the property and that location and basically agreed with the applicant that those uses would not be detrimental to surrounding residential is list and should be put back into the list of uses -by -right on the property and that was how the list was formulated. Member Carroll asked if the 11 permitted uses was permitted in a commercial zone by right. Mr. Waido replied that was correct. Member Carroll asked if what they had done was take the quite lengthy list of use -by -rights in a commercial zone and eliminated all of them except those 11. Mr. Waido replied that was correct. Member Carroll asked when it says auto repair, there was one that says auto repair inside a building and then auto repair and that meant you could have an auto outside the building. Mr. Waido replied that was correct. Member Strom stated he was somewhat uncomfortable with staying with the C zone designation. Was there anything in their concept of drafting this proposal that restricts the language of the C zone where it essentially says any use similar to the above. Mr. Waido replied being listed as such in the zone did not differentiate as to what kind of auto repair. It could be a transmission shop or a body shop, as long as it is in the generic category of auto repair. Similarly offices and clinics did not differentiate as to an attorney's office, an accountants office as long as it is an office. Within the parameters of those generic categories the uses are restricted or not restricted, depending on your perspective.