Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/16/2006Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (W) 491-2579 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Smith, Stockover, Rollins, Schmidt and Lingle Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Wamhoff, Shepard, Olt, and Dairies. Citizen Participation: None Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda: 1 • Minutes of the October 20 (Continued), November 17, December 8, 2005 and January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. # 18-05B Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses — Project Development Plan. 3. #1-95F New Belgium Brewery Amended Overall Development Plan. 4. #13-05B Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning. 5. #53-05 Boma Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda 6. #1-95F New Belgium Brewery — Project Development Plan. 7. #19-05 Fox Meadows Business Park, Tract B — Request for Amended Modification of Standard. Director Gloss asked that Item 5, Boma Annexation and Zoning be placed on the discussion agenda. Director Gloss asked that Item 6, New Belgium Brewery PDP be placed on the Consent Agenda. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 2 Citizen Participation: Barry McPhearson, 1960 Jamison Drive was there representing the majority of homeowners on the 1900 Block of Jamison Drive with regard to a lighting issue. They recently to the north had a new development which eventually would be 5 medical office buildings and unfortunately due to the planning of the space, the parking lot is on their backyards and the accompanying lights are on all night long and they are exceedingly bright. They are way in excess of the legal limits of light being allowed into their yards. He had a photometric drawing of what was intended for this space and they have also gone through and taken photometric readings throughout this space and in many instances they are 9 times in excess of what is allowed. They have discussed this with the developer and he has sent them away saying "he does not care if they sell their house, his plan was approved before you bought your house". That is incorrect and they would just like some resolution. He addressed the problem with the contractor before the lights were installed, before the electrical was run and before the foundations were poured. He also suggested alternative solutions for them and was told to "go jump in a lake". According to the document on file with the city, they are supposed to be 20 foot 6 inches high and some of the lights are approaching 3 foot higher than they are supposed to be. They are supposed to be installed with shields and none of them have shields. They are frustrated and are looking for a resolution. Director Gloss understood that this is a zoning enforcement action and that request had already been forwarded on to zoning and they are actively pursuing it. He stated that this is an ongoing zoning investigation and the city will be pursuing compliance of that lighting plan as approved originally as part of the development. They have to be compliant in order to get a Certificate of Occupancy. There was no other Citizen Participation. Chairperson Lingle suggested adding Item 7, Fox Meadows Business Park to the Consent Agenda. The Board agreed to add it to the Consent Agenda. Member Schmidt moved to approve the Consent agenda consisting of Item 1, less the October 20, 2005 meeting, 2, 3, 4,6 and 7. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 3 Project: Boma Annexation and Zoning, # 53-05 Project Description: Request to annex and zone 82.05 acres located at the southwest corner of East Douglas Road (County Road 54) and Turnberry Road (County Road 11). The property contains one (1) existing farmstead with agricultural uses and several existing oil wells. It is in the FA1 — Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE — Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval of the annexation and requested zoning. Hearing Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff report recommending approval. He stated that there is no development proposal before the Board and nothing has been submitted. Tonight the Board was only considering the annexation and zoning of the property. The Board would be forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for the February 21 meeting. The reason staff has asked this item to be pulled from the Consent Agenda is that staff was made aware by several residents that they had just received letters of notification around last weekend. After some investigating he discovered some insufficiencies in the mailing list. The next day the applicant provided staff with a new list of affected property owners, it was checked, and found to be sufficient to cover the property owners within the designated area. Another letter was sent out on February 8w which was 8 days ago. The people who received the second letter were concerned about not receiving the letter in a timely fashion as the Land Use Code would identify. Planner Olt reported that Section 2.2.6 of the Land Use Code dealing with mailings for development plans requires that letters be sent out 14 days in advance of the public hearing. In discussions with the City Attorney's office it has been determined that annexation is not truly defined as development in the city's Land Use Code. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman added that was correct and that the annexation provisions of the Land Use Code don't require any notice. Annexation is not a quasi- judicial matter, it is legislative matter and this Board is only making a recommendation to the Council. However, zoning is, and in this particular case, any zoning of land of less than 640 acres or less is a quasi-judicial rezoning under our Land Use Code which Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 4 does require some notice. Those notice requirements are contained in Section 2.9.4(F)(2) which requires a 7 day mailing requirement. Planner Olt stated that the letter went out of our office on February 8th, which was 8 days ago, so it does meet the 7 day requirement referenced. He felt what we were getting to is the question of whether the Planning and Zoning Board could consider this tonight or continue it based on a potentially insufficient notification. Staff's recommendation is that we have met the notification requirement and that the Board could consider this item tonight. Member Schmidt asked about the 1/6 contiguity coming from the County Club North Annexation and the Douglas Road right-of-way and how did that fit with the statement made that roads don't count as contiguity. Director Gloss replied that you jump over right-of-way to gather contiguity Planner Olt showed a visual of the annexation map and explained for the Board how this project gained its contiguity. It consists of 30 feet along the center line of Douglas Road, which is part of the annexation map for County Club North First Annexation and then the entire east property line. When you total those it is 1,349 feet and 1,341 feet is required. Member Schmidt would not be as concerned about it, but it is only 8 feet that they actually meet the 1/6th requirement and we are 30-feet into a roadway. PUBLIC INPUT Kathleen Kilkely, 920 Inverness Road stated that one of the reason some of them were there tonight was to ask for a delay because of the confusing and conflicting items here. The first one is notification and timing and the confusion of what the legal requirement. Most of the notices that were received by many people were actually postmarked on the 9th. The letterhead from the city does say that it was typed up on the 8th, but the postmark is the 9`h. Many people received these either late Friday or Saturday, so if you count the number of days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday were working days when offices are open and they don't feel that was adequate enough for them to contact people and understand what is going on. Some of the confusion that has lead to this is the sign that is posted on the property says "Development Proposal Under Review". She understands that the city has budget constraints, but the letter itself says "proposed development". It is an electronic document and it would take 5 minutes to correct that and reissue the letter so that it does not perpetuate the confusion about what is happening here tonight and so people understand it is a hearing for a petition for Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 5 annexation and zoning not a proposed development. The initial reaction from many of her neighbors was for development. Ms. Kilkely cited Section 2.2.6 of the Land Use Code and the statement that formally designated representatives of bonified neighborhood groups shall also receive notice. She is a member and here tonight for the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, which was formed about 10 years ago in this area. They have a long history with the Planning Department and had an informal verbal agreement that any development issues in the northeast part of either the Urban Growth Area or Unincorporated Larimer County, their organization would be added to the affected property owners list. Some of the other questions they would like answered is the contiguity issue. She spent more than her share of time out in the field, so she is also curious as to when the engineering consultants supply the survey information for the site whether they also supply a plus or minus margin of error. We are dealing here with eight feet being the breaking point of either being or not being eligible for annexation. They are also concerned with the road issue and how that affects contiguity. Even beyond that the Larimer-Weld Ditch runs there and she was curious about how the right of way of the ditch, which is probably what most of the chimney is composed of and how that might affect an annexation because it might be annexed into the city but it is not developable land and it will never be a Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood in the chimney area. Karl Swenson, 3404 Corte Almadan, stated he is President of the Serramonte Highlands Homeowners Association also requested that the item be pulled from tonight's agenda so they would have ample time to see what is being proposed. They would also like answers to the questions that have been raised here tonight. In short this smells bad to him and it almost seems that it is being rushed through without proper review and without a lot of people having understanding of what is going on. Marsha Lots, 3501 Juanita Road stated that she did not have much more to add that has not already been said other than her neighbors are very interested in what is going on and they would really like time to think about it and look it over and hope something good comes with it, but they don't like the way it is going now. Catherine Saye, 3405 Corte Almaden, also from the Serramonte HOA stated that she had spoke to several of the neighbors and some of the concerns they had expressed were enclave concerns. One of her concerns was mostly a chance to understand more and learn more about the Urban Estate zoning and what that means and if there are other options of what this property could be to reflect more of what their neighborhood is. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 6 PUBLIC INPUC CLOSED Chairperson Lingle asked Planner Olt to address the issue of enclaves Planner Olt replied in looking at the map, there is a gap between the southwest corner of the proposed Boma Annexation and city limits. He pointed out the properties that would have to voluntarily annex to create an enclave that would annex Serramonte Highlands because it is the Growth Management Area boundary line and unless those properties voluntarily annex to close that gap, it is very unlikely it is going to occur. Chairperson Lingle asked about the city's letter language and the signage that is posted on the property. Planner Olt replied that we have a standard sign and we have a rezoning sign. Historically we have always posted a Development Under Review sign, we don't have five or six different signs for the nature of the proposal that is before us. The sign does have a phone number to get information. Until today, he had not received any phone calls as to what is going on on that property. We have talked previously about the legal notification requirement from the standpoint of a mailed letter. Staff feels that because of the nature of this request being an annexation and zoning, that the seven day requirement is what applies here. The letter was dated from the Current Planning Department on the 8`n it was postmarked the 9m which meets the 7 day requirement. Once it leaves our office we have no control over the delivery time. Director Gloss reported that in reviewing the annexation map, this property has contiguity along its entire eastern boundary, which based on the dimensions staff has makes it compliant with the 1/6 requirement under State law. There was a question about the applicant's accuracy of the materials presented. He asked that the applicant come forward to speak to that issue. Staff is convinced that the contiguity per State law has been met. Bud Curtis, Northern Engineering stated that their survey department did go out and survey this ground and he feels confident that what they came up with was within platting standards. This material was also checked with city survey staff, which reviewed the legal description and the acreage they reported. Member Schmidt asked if the RUL, Rural Open Lands zoning district were an option for this property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 7 Planner Olt replied it would if this were to be delayed, but that is not an adopted zoning district that is available yet. The applicant has submitted in a timely fashion a voluntary request for annexation and they have been to initiating resolution on January 17th in front of Council and based on State Statutes there is a requirement that they go to City Council for first reading within 60 days of that initiating resolution. Member Meyer moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Boma Annexation and Zoning based the findings of fact in the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion. Member Stockover commented that most of the audience was concerned about being able to know what ultimately happens with the property. He asked for a recap of what they can do with the property if they don't annex it versus if we do annex it. Planner Olt replied technically because it is eligible for annexation and based on the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and the city of Fort Collins; for them to proposed development they have to request annexation and come into the city. There really is not a choice at this point in time. Member Stockover asked if any development that comes forth will be posted and everyone will be notified and they will be fully aware of what happens. Planner Olt replied that when they submit a development plan there will be put a sign on the property, there will be a neighborhood meeting prior to submittal of the development proposal, it would go through our development review process with the full development project development plan submittal of a site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, utility and stormwater drawings and the environmental drawings that are necessary. At this point in time we are not reviewing a development plan. Member Stockover just wanted to get that on the record that we are not rushing anything along and that all the property owners will have ample time to give input as to how it proceeds after this. Member Schmidt asked that the letter that goes out be more specific and we will make sure the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition will be added to the notification list. The motion was approved 6-0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 8 Other Business: Project: Recommendation to City Council regarding amending Section 3.5.4 — Large Retail Establishments Project Description: Request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding amending Section 3.5.4(C)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code. The proposed Revision would place additional emphasis on providing a functional entrance(s) on the side of a large retail establishment and that such an entrance may be to small retail stores (liner shop). Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval. He stated that the significant change is that the Board originally wanted to require a 45% linear side elevation coverage of the smaller retail stores or the attached liner shops, staff felt that that was probably going to mean a lot of modifications or perhaps an automatic modification. The 45%, not that it might be that hard to hit, but it is so prescriptive and so precise in that what if they came in at 44% or what if they gave us an entrance that would approximate a large retail establishments side entrance that even if the large retail establishment did it, it might not be 45%; so if it were a side entrance to a Wal- Mart, Target or Home Depot and really truly operational and functional, that would meet the standard in the best way and it might not be 45% of the linear footage along the side elevation. On the one hand we would be saying that that true entrance would be meeting the standard, the smaller liner shops could not meet it unless they did 45% linear footage of coverage. Staff thought that was a double standard there. Staffs recommendation is that we take out the 45%. Chairperson Lingle was concerned about eliminating the 45% standard because he thought the goal of this is to have two operational entrances to a big box. What the city is doing is allowing essentially a pre -approved modification to that standard by allowing the liner shops to substitute for that. He thought in that regard there should be a pretty heavy burden on that modification so that it needs to be something more significant. He was looking at it that the 45% or 75% or 100% is really what we would be shooting for in lieu of the preferred second operational entrance. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 9 Member Schmidt commented that when she was reading this and using such words as "distinctive store fronts and entrances that are significantly differentiated" to her that created a scenario that the burden was enough to do this versus having the two entrances. She was wondering what kind of guidelines we have to determine that language when a proposal comes, is that going to be totally subjective of this looks distinctive or doesn't. She agreed with Chairperson Lingle that we are creating an option and we want a strong option and she wondered if the language would cover for that. Planner Shepard replied that the language is written so we have some basis for our subjective evaluation and you could almost say it in the contrary. You could say something, when meeting with the applicant, like that you cannot give us a non descript employee only entrance, you can't give us a metal door that says fire exit only with no windows. You can say when reading the standards what you don't want. These words in this part of the Code, all the standards in the Big Box that are prescriptive are subjective. We sometimes have applicants that test the limits of what the words mean and that is when staff comes back to the Board and say we need better words because we did not like the result. Member Schmidt asked if one of the goals is to help distribute parking, should that be mentioned somewhere or is that covered somewhere else. Planner Shepard replied that the Code does not provide explanatory text. We have a booklet that staff hands out with a lot of illustrations and it is called Standards and Guidelines and it does provide explanatory text. Member Schmidt did not feel uncomfortable putting a number down, she would feel uncomfortable committing to the fact that we would go with 37 or something because we can speak for ourselves but could not speak for future Board's that may not be as lenient. Planner Shepard replied that staff was struggling with what would happen if you get a liner shop that came in and it was 20 feet wide along a 300 foot long elevation. The counter argument was that that is what you might get if it was a side entrance to a Home Depot, but if it is a liner shop we are raising the bar. Chairperson Lingle's point was excellent in that if it a liner shop it is not a true entry, you cannot get into the Big Box from the liner store and maybe it does carry a heavier burden. Chairperson Lingle asked if there was language in the Land Use Code that gives staff the ability to waive up to 10% of what the standard is. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 10 Planner Shepard replied that we have Alternative Compliance which is not quite a modification. It means that you have complied with the standard in an alternative way that did not quite cross the threshold to becoming an out and out modification. Alternative Compliance is a flexible way for a standard to be met in a more different and creative way. Member Rollins asked if there was some kind of number because you do want some minimum number. On the other had if staff really does think that by doing this you are just going to get requests for exceptions, then we have accomplished nothing. Member Rollins commented that she shops at the King Sooper's on Harmony all the time and she does not park on the side when she goes to shop at the King Sooper's, she parks in front of King Sooper's. She parks in front of those other stores when she is going to Qudoba or Starbucks, but her destination is different. She loves the way it is laid out, but if you are trying to get me who is going into King Sooper's to park in front of Starbucks and walk over, she highly doubts that there is many people who do that. Director Gloss responded that it gets back to what was discussed at worksession that consumers want to see the entrance of the store that they are trying to get to. They want to park in relative proximity and walk directly to the entrance. Member Stockover commented that in reading it means that we want to mitigate mass and scale and distribution of parking. If he is going to a store he is going to park as close as he can and he will keep going out until there is a parking place, If you want to mitigate parking, do it with parking places. He would not park on the side if there are empty spaces in front. We are dealing with the look of the building and mass and scale is first and foremost and parking is secondary. By putting other stores on the side, he did not think we are curing anything with parking. If he were a developer he would like more flexibility. If we are going to say you need to make the sides look nice, that is what we should do is say we want the sides to look nice, not say we are going to burden you if you don't give us what we want. Let's work more towards what we really want. Planner Shepard replied that one of the ways that you make the Big Box mitigated is by bringing it closer to the street and not have large parking fields between front door and street. That way you get connecting walkways and you do start to add some human scale to it. He thought that even if you don't get total 100% compliance that we envision, you still accomplish shorter walking distances. Member Smith asked if we look at the south Home Depot, in the proposed language it says that "if a large retail establishment does not include a second side entrance that is fully operational and open to the public then this standard shall ... " that does not address their garden door, so somebody could do, if there is a loophole there, exactly Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 11 what Home Depot did because it is not a year round, everyday that the store is open accessible entrance. He thought we have not closed that loophole. Planner Shepard replied that we are hoping that we do. If this language were in effect and this project came in, we would say that the Garden Center entrance does not cut it and you need to do something else. We think that the language we are adding gives us a better standing to require that. Member Smith thought they could do it seasonal and get by with it because the Code does not specifically address hours of operation being the standard. Planner Shepard replied that we could be more precise with that language. Member Stockover referred to the Super Wal-Mart and if it met every letter except that they don't open the door, who cares where they park because when the front parking lot is full, people park on the side. Planner Shepard replied that if we did not have this standard we would not even have side parking and that is the proto type. They would put 95% of the parking between front door and street. That results in pushing the building as far away from the public sidewalks as humanly possible. Member Stockover said that what staff is saying is that they do meet all the standards, they just leave the door locked. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Schmidt thought that the parking was a separate standard in Big Boxes Planner Shepard replied it is but they work together. If you don't have distributed parking and if you don't have multiple entrances then you are going to get what every community proto type has and that is that you will have the Big Box set way back, front parking field, one single, single entrance, large parking field. The rest of the Big Box Standards are architectural articulation. Member Schmidt asked if Wal-Mart had that door as operational where it is, they would be in full compliance right now. Planner Shepard replied that was correct Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 12 Member Schmidt wondered if we really need this or if we need to put more force into what we want which is that the Big Boxes have dual entrances and make some kind of allowance for the catty corner thing if it works with the disbursed parking. Planner Shepard replied that the catty corner allowance is there. What we are finding is that the single use Big Box will not give us a true second entrance on the middle of a side elevation. We have tried, knocked our heads against the wall trying and we are not getting it. Member Schmidt asked if right now we would accept the caddie corner as long as they kept it operational. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. If they can't do that they need to give us liner shops. Member Stockover stated that his point is that with Super Wal-Mart they did give the parking that the city wanted. He agrees with everything being said, but if they do put the entrance or what looks like an entrance, which gives it some architectural design on the side and it is not a blank wall and you do have parking over there, you have accomplished your two goals. You have distributed your parking and you have quite a bit of architecture going along the side, so if it looks like you want and the parking is where you want it, why should we care if the doors are locked. That is an operation of business not of planning. Director Gloss replied it is about function. The parking field and the entrance work in tandem. Leaving one of those elements out leaves a dysfunctional situation. Member Stockover said that if you put a shop on the side and you can't get to the Big Box, you have not cured a thing. Planner Shepard replied that his concern about where you are heading, is that we might get faux architecture and faux entrances and that starts to look like applied, tack on type articulation. Like Chairperson Lingle said, it is Plan B. What we really want is what we are not getting, the industry will not give it to us. We can't beat our heads against the wall forever and let's try and beef up the liner shop scenario so we can get the tandem standards to work functionally. Chairperson Lingle still thought even if we seta standard that someone is going want to modify and they have to show that it is equal to or better than and to say that they request 30% coverage is equal to or better than 45% coverage would be a tough sell. Especially since our desire is to have a second entrance to the Big Box. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 13 Planner Shepard said that when the Harmony Corridor Standards were amended to allow a Regional Shopping Center at the Lifestyle site staff told Council that we would come back with a change to the Big Box Standards to try to beef them up a little bit. Member Schmidt move to recommend to City Council approval of the amendment to the Big Box Standards with the recommendation that staff include an additional paragraph recommending that the liner shops take up 45% of the side or meet an Alternative Compliance paragraph that staff will work on. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. These minutes were approved on July 20, 2006 by the Planning and Zoning Board.