Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/17/2008Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler Staff Present: Gloss, Tempel, Waido, Olt, Maizland, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they wanted to pull items off the consent agenda. There were no requests. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the June 19, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Discussion Items: 2. Whitman Storage Facility -Request for a Modification of Standard - #11-08 3. Willow Lane and North College Avenue Rezone, # 16-08 Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including minutes from the June 19, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0 with Member Lingle and Chair Schmidt abstaining. Project: Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification of Standard - #11-08 Project Description: This is a commercial project known as the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification of Standard. The subject property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive, approximately 500 feet east of South College Avenue. The property is zoned C, Commercial and RL, Low Density Residential. The request is for a modification of the standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) that requires fences or walls to be no more than four (4) feet high between the front building line and front property line. The request is to allow the existing six (6) foot high chain link security fence that is located along the south side of East Skyway Drive to remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements to East Skyway Drive are to be made. This is a request for a modification of the aforementioned standard only. A formal submittal of a development plan for review has been Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 2 made and will be presented to the Planning & Zoning Board at a future public hearing. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Steve Olt reported the Applicant has submitted an application with a request for a modification of the standard as set forth in Section 3.8.11 — Fences and Walls, Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC (Land Use Code) regarding fence or wall locations. This subsection sets forth the requirement that: • Fences or walls shall be nor more than four (4) feet high between the front building line and front property line. This application for a modification of the standard requests that the Planning & Zoning Board determine if the modification request meets the intent of the LUC and the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2 of the LUC. This request is only for a modification of the specific standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC. The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (PDP) request for review by the City, which will be presented to the Board at a future public hearing. The request for a modification of standard in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC, based on the Project Development Plan as submitted, is being justified by stating that the design life of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be incurred due to the granting of the modification. Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC states (in part) that by reason of extraordinary and exceptional conditions, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act of the Applicant. Apparently the fence posts are anchored in concrete. However, the nature of the construction of the fence, in its present location, was caused by the act of the property owner (Applicant). As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), the Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 3 that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. " Staff has determined that the requested modification of the standard is not supported by the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC and denial of the application is recommended. Member Wetzler noted that Code calls for a detached sidewalk in this area. Olt replied yes that's correct. Wetzler asked if the sidewalk would be where the fence is currently. Olt replied that, if detached, the sidewalk would be where the fence is now. Wetzler asked if the modification is approved, would the fence be allowed to remain there permanently. Olt replied the modification request was framed to remain until improvements are made to E. Skyway Drive. Since the street is not being widened, its placement could be permanent. Wetzler asked who would be responsible for moving posts, power poles, and the phone box. Director Gloss said the Electric Utility has a schedule for under -grounding all the overhead lines as a part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. If it's a detached sidewalk, the fire hydrant will be completely behind the fire hydrant. In some cases, creativity may be required where the sidewalk placement would "snake" through as needed. Member Lingle noted that when the property was developed in Larimer County commercial uses were not permitted in an FA farming district. Would at 6 foot high fence itself be permitted in the county regardless of the zoning? Staff were unsure of County requirements. Per applicant Whitman, however, the fence would be legal. Olt said when the property was annexed it had illegal uses (the storage portion of the property.) Lingle said from staffs perspective, justification for modification of standard included physical hardship as well as "or other exceptional situations unique to such property." Lingle wondered if the fence was permitted in the County and then annexed into the City would that create a hardship. Director Gloss said typically the justification criteria considered a physical hardship similar to what the Zoning Board of Appeals uses for variances. An economic hardship typically does not come into play. Chair Schmidt said in the staff report it noted that if the fence was reduced to 4 feet than it could remain where it is now. What happens to the sidewalk placement issue then? Olt said yes —if reduced to 4 feet it would be allowed in its current location. Olt noted that Whitman had been meeting with City staff on issues related to his Project Development Plan (PDP.) The City Engineer's thought is that if the modification to standard is approved by the Board, she (City Engineer) would consider granting a variance to allow for an attached sidewalk. Member Campana noted that modification of standards requests are normally reviewed by the Board at the time they review the PDP. Olt replied yes, that's correct. Whitman, however, elected to submit a standalone request so he'd get a sense before the PDP was reviewed if he has to move the fence. Campana thought one of the options was to leave the fence in the current location until the street improvements took place. Olt noted that statement (in the staff report) is one the applicant made. Olt said there are to be no improvements to Skyway drive except for a sidewalk improvement. Campana asked how far back from the curb is the fire hydrant is Olt estimated it to be 11 feet from the base of the fence to the curb line. This is 113 of that or approximately 3 to 4 feet. Campana said that more than likely it would have to be an attached sidewalk. Olt agreed and said that means the fire hydrant might have to be moved. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 4 Member Wetzler asked if the applicant would then be responsible for moving the hydrant. Olt said it would be the responsibility of the property owner/developer. Wetzler wondered if it would be cheaper moving the sidewalk or all sidewalk obstructions. Olt responded if the sidewalk is attached, the phone box would not have to be moved and as Director Gloss stated, the utility poles and guide wires will be addressed by the Utilities Department. There may be a nominal expense to move the meters. The fire hydrant would be the only problematic utility. Member Lingle said if there was no Project Development Plan (PDP), would the fence be allowed to remain or would it be cited as a zoning violation? Or would it be allowed to remain until there was a development proposal that would trigger it? Olt replied there are zoning violations that are currently being addressed. The property was annexed November 2006 as Phase I of the Southwest Annexation. They came in with an illegal Larimer County use; therefore, the illegal use issue is being addressed by the City. Their options are either cease and desist or correct. They are moving forward with correction with this process. In January, 2008 the Board approved rezoning to allow for C (Commercial) on the west side and RL (Residential) on the east side of the property. The proposed PDP will address the illegal use issues. Member Lingle asked if the fence alone would be a violation regardless of whether a PDP was being considered. Olt replied yes it would be in violation of the Land Use Code (LUC.). Chair Schmidt asked at the time the PDP is reviewed, is there landscaping required? Olt replied yes. If there is to be an attached sidewalk, there would be enough room in the five foot area between the sidewalk and the fence to add trees. If the sidewalk were to be detached, the trees go in the area between the curb and the sidewalk. Schmidt asked if the road slopes down so the fence sits below the road level. Olt replied he did not think there was a lot of grade change there. It is likely there is a flat section between fence and curb. Randy Whitman, 209 E. Skyway, is the owner of the property. He stated first off the fence was permitted in Larimer County as a legal fence. If a four -foot fence is allowed, why not a six-foot high fence —it's helping him to keep his property secure. His request is being made to allow the existing six (6) foot high chain link security fence that is located along East Skyway Drive to remain in place until such time as street improvements to East Skyway Drive are made. The applicant's modification request is based upon the following information: • The modification is desired in order to allow for the existing fence to remain in place. The existing barbed wire located at the top of the fence is to be removed. • The ultimate alignment for East Skyway Drive has not been determined and no time frame has been established to construct the ultimate improvements. • Sidewalk is to be installed along the southern side of East Skyway Drive adjacent to the site in conjunction with the proposed development. • The health, safety and welfare of the general public will not be jeopardized by the granting of the modification. • The design life of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be incurred due to the granting of the modification. The fence is a security fence for his commercial property —to protect his property and to keep kids from trespassing and getting hurt. In the PDP he's proposed an outdoor display for his equipment. In the County they were permitted to have a small engine repair shop. At the time of the annexation the outdoor storage was not permitted but since then the County's changed their code and outside storage is allowed. So, ultimately, if he went back into the County he would be legal. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 5 Whitman said across the street is a six-foot high wood fence. To avoid creating a tunnel effect, the chain link helps visually to mitigate that. He could be legal now if he took out the storage component (illegal use,) he wouldn't have to tear down the fence or do anything. The street does slope slightly the further east when you go down Skyway but when you're on his property it is pretty level. Finally, working with the hydrant is very workable. There are a lot of options for a work around. He wondered why, in fact, the Transfort and Poudre R-1 School District properties on Trilby are allowed to have chain link fences with barbed wire. And, at the Public Storage facility across College to the west they have a security fence. Why don't they have to be in compliance? Whitman said Olt had pictures of the southeast corner of the Transfort facility on Trilby. Olt noted thee six foot chain -link fence is a significant distance from the street. There's berming and significant landscaping. Olt did not have photos of the west side of the Poudre R-1 school district property — Whitman stated it had a barbed wire fence around the whole lot. Whitman said he already has $10,000 costs into the current fence, he would like to not have to put additional funds into it at this time. Whitman said if he moved the fence back he could have a six foot fence. He did not see how that would improve the situation --He'd have to move berms and a portion of a wall; he'd have to move equipment; and he'd have to re -landscape. He hoped the Board would approve the request for a modification of standard. Member Lingle asked Whitman if he was aware of the criteria the Board must consider when evaluating a request. Which would you like the Board to concentrate on —is it equal to or better than, is it the physical hardship, or is it the nominal and inconsequential? Whitman responded all —it's all detrimental to him due to the expenses related to the requirement. Lingle reminded him that financial hardship is not something the Board can evaluate. Member Smith said his application states he's be willing to come into compliance at the time the improvements are made along Skyway —is that true? Whitman replied when he is approved for storage, then yes he'd put in the sidewalk and landscaping in. Smith asked if he'd also move the fence. Whitman said Engineering would support an attached sidewalk —if the Board approved the modification the fence could remain there. Smith said he'd gotten an impression from the staff report this would be a temporary situation and once the street was improved it would come into strict compliance —if that's not the case, what is it? Olt apologized if the staff does not clearly state the situation --in essence the decision the Board makes will be a permanent decision. Member Wetzler asked if the east end of the fence is not completely open. Whitman replied there's a barbed wire fence there. They had to stop there because that's about the time the IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) came into play. Wetzler asked if there is a plan to complete the fence all the way around the property to provide security. Whitman said yes on the east side. He's plan is to have a vinyl fence on the RL portion of the property when money is available. Chair Schmidt asked how long ago was the chain link fence installed? Whitman responded in 1996. Schmidt asked when you say equipment —what do you mean? Whitman responded on the west side of the building there's a display of small engines equipment lawn mowers and tractors. Public Input Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, said he's followed this project and many others in the neighborhood for some time. He finds the proposal very confusing. He thinks the sidewalk is key to the request. When he built a home a block and a half away, Skyway was not even in the city. The Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 6 City required both him and the developer of Huntington Hills to install a vertical curb and gutter with a detached walk. He thinks we should be consistent with that standard. Schumm is not clear with regard to the fence. As recently as the date of the hearing, he received a call back from Traffic staff relative to the fence. If there is a change to Skyway, the fence will need to be moved. To be fair to everyone, he recommends the request is deferred to the time the Project Development Plan is considered when you actually have a recommendation and signatures from Engineering staff. Whitman has been allowed to run his small engine business as a home occupation —that has been a problem. That's where all the violations have come. He is not in compliance today but he's on a moratorium that kicked in when he was able to rezone and had time to complete a PDP. He's also been give a 3 month extension so I believe 90 days from July 15, one way or the other he needs to come into compliance with the Fort Collins Codes. Schumm said Whitman is not a small business man. What's he talking about tonight is development. He is here as a developer and as a developer is responsible for the utilities and the sidewalk — meeting the Code unless there's some extenuating circumstance that makes it extremely difficult to do. I just don't see that in this case. Finally, there is no parking on Skyway. Big vehicles have been stored there. When the gate is locked and people want to get through that gate, they park in the street. No matter what you do with the fence itself, that drive should be extended to the gate so that when people come and they're waiting to get in the gate, they are off the street. He suggests the same in the opposite direction —if you're in and want to come out, you should drive through the gate and not be in the street. Schumm recommended either a denial or a deferral to when the full plan is reviewed. Chair Schmidt asked staff member Olt to respond to questions raised and comments made. It appeared that Boyne Ct. did not have detached sidewalks but are the sidewalks the rest of the way down Skyway detached? Olt responded Boyne Ct. has detached sidewalks with roll over curb and that he did not have any pictures of streets further down. He asked engineering staff to respond. Engineering staff member Randy Maizland did the engineering review for this project. He said east on Skyway on the south side there is a detached sidewalk. Chair Schmidt asked staff to also speak to the gate issue and parking on the street —are there some problems with that. Maizland said Schumm brought up a good point with the fence being in its current location —it creates somewhat of a traffic hazard if there are large trucks trying to get onto the property and the gate is locked. They will be overhanging into the street and over the sidewalk while they're waiting for the gate to be opened. Jim DiGuilio, 5931 Boyne Ct, lives across the street from the facility. He said he's never seen evidence of traffic tie ups. He wanted the Board to know people pull in and out from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. when it's locked without problem. Whitman stated DTS Trucking operates across the street from him. They park in the middle of the street on Skyway where there's an area for people to park. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 7 Matt Brown, 423 Spaulding Lane, was here for another portion of the meeting but the discussion raised some questions for him. He has property in the county. If a fence was legal in the county and then annexed into the city and the fence needed to be moved to be in compliance, wouldn't that be the City's financial responsibility. Director Gloss said when a property is annexed into the City and has non -conforming buildings or fences, they are not required to be modified. In this situation, a development was proposed. That is when the City is required to have all the improvements on the site come into compliance with the present standards --that's the trigger point. End of Public Input Member Campana said he'd not be supporting this modification. He would have an issue with the fence staying there. He sympathized but said "the game" changes when you become a developer. There's a Land Use Code that needs to be followed --those are the rules of the game. The Board stands by those rules when new projects coming through. If he's developing a new project with different uses, we want him to bring it up to the existing code. Member Lingle would have a hard time supporting the modification request; particularly when you look at the review criteria the Board has for supporting the modification. It's a relatively high standard to meet. The only criteria he that might possible come close is nominal and inconsequential-2 feet off a 6 foot fence but he didn't think it was, in fact, nominal and inconsequential. He agreed with Campana with development triggering the need to come into compliance. Chair Schmidt had some questions about the Board's options. Mr. Schumm's suggested the Board look at postponing this request and looking at it as a part of the whole PDP. Olt said the applicant had requested the modification of standard be heard separate from the PDP so the applicant would know what he needs to do. Unless he's willing to give you a different position tonight, he respectfully suggested it was incumbent on the Board to render a decision. Schmidt said the Board was basing the review on the fact that the fence needs to change on a development plan they'll see at a later date. Will it be a massive change? Her other reservation is the Code says the fence can stay in its present location if it's 4 feet high To her, 2 feet is a nominal change. Also, it's a chain link and a see - through material. She could possible support the modification based on the information she's seen. . Member Lingle noted its substantial enough of a proposal to require the PDP so that suggests it's not a fairly minor thing. Member Stockover said we had a pretty good idea-- in the Board's packet is a diagram that shows Phase One is a seventy-two hundred (7200) square foot RV storage. Phase Two information is cut off. Phase Three is a fifty six hundred (5600) square foot storage structure. Olt asked if it would be appropriate to put this into context or would it be premature to do that in terms of why the applicant is required to submit a PDP. Schmidt said as Stockover has pointed out it appears to be a pretty substantial change. Chair Schmidt asked if there was an access road. Is it part of a driveway? Does a part of the front yard become a side yard? Olt said you'd have a single point of access into the site with the entire property running along Skyway. It would be a private residence drive providing access to the storage facilities. Member Stockover asked if there is a storage facility currently. Olt replied yes. Stockover asked how it could be a change in use if the property already had a storage facility. Olt said that was one of the zoning violations being brought into compliance. According to Barnes it was not in compliance when it was in the County. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 8 Chair Schmidt asked when the property was rezoned to Commercial in January 2008 was it not then legal. Olt responded that apparently there are still violations that the applicant has until mid -July to bring into compliance. Director Gloss added that an enclosed mini -storage that is part of the PDP proposal is a type II use in the C zone district. He added they'll not give too much detail here because Board is not looking at the development plan. Member Rollins agrees with Members Campana and Lingle. She will not be supporting this request for modification. She wanted to add for the benefit of engineering staff —she understands if there was a building there and concessions needed to be made relative to an attached sidewalk. She thinks detached sidewalks are very important from a pedestrian's perspective, however. The requirement is held to be very valuable and the reason it was included in the Code. To offer a concession so as not need to move a chain link fence is very disheartening. Member Wetzler feels strongly about the need for detached sidewalks. Regardless of Engineering support of an attached sidewalk, he believes it is detrimental to the public good to not have a detached sidewalk. His concern is for the safety of pedestrians. He won't support the modification request. Member Lingle moved to deny the request for a modification of standard # 11-08 for the Whitman Storage Facility based on the facts and findings in the staff report beginning on page 5. Also, of the review procedure standards listed we do not find that any of the four review standards have been met. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:1 with Chair Schmidt dissenting. Chair Schmidt had a question for engineering staff. Would a four foot fence be moved for detached sidewalks? Maizland said they would be requiring some right-of-way dedication with this PDP. If the fence is left in its existing location it would be encroaching into that new right-of-way and that's why we couldn't fit in a detached walk. Schmidt asked if the fence needed to be moved to clear the right- of-way. Maizland said the fence would absolutely need to be moved to get the detached standard walk but he thinks the City Engineer was going to support a variance to allow for a 6 foot attached walk. Maizland said if the current fence was reduced to 4 feet, is would still be encroaching into the right of way and it won't allow for a detached walk. They did discuss it with the applicant and they were going to put language into his development agreement that allowed for an encroachment into the right-of-way. Assistant City Attorney Tempel recommended the motion also include language that speaks to meeting the review criteria. Member Lingle revised his motion to what is listed above and Member Campana agreed to the motion changes. Project: Willox/North College Rezoning and Related Items, #16-08 Project Description: This is a staff -initiated request for recommendation to City Council to approve a proposed amendment to a land use designation in the North College Corridor Plan; and accordingly to the City Structure Plan and Zoning Map. The subject area is a 31-acre area at the northeast corner of Willox Lane and North College Avenue. The area contains 13 parcels. The proposed change is from the Community Commercial -North College District (CC-N) to the Commercial -North College, District (C-N). Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 9 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief City Planner Ken Waido noted after 13 years of working with CC-N zoning on the subject area, staff now believes it is more realistic and appropriate to complete a shift that has been occurring toward the direction of C-N designation. The shift would make zoning consistent with the rest of North College/Highway 287 frontage. The shift would expand the range of commercial uses, particularly more auto -related uses oriented to North College Avenue/US 287 itself. The subject area is a quadrant of a significant intersection, with North College Avenue an Arterial Street also serving as US 287 and SH 14; and Willox Lane a City Minor Arterial. The area contains about 23 acres of undeveloped land including two wetlands; the North College Motors used car dealership; Pobre Pancho restaurant; and a few houses and mobile homes along Grape Street, which is a 20-foot wide gravel/dirt right-of-way extending east off of North College Avenue for about 500 feet. The 23 acres of undeveloped land represent one of the few opportunities for College Avenue frontage remaining in the City, and they also have significant frontage on Willox Lane. Staff finds that this wider range of commercial uses is needed to make development feasible in the market; that the uses can be designed and developed to achieve a range of goals for infrastructure improvements, economic revitalization, and image/identity; and that development standards are adequate to achieve these goals. In the years since the original CC-N designation in 1995, owners, potential developers and users, and the City have all worked with the CC-N zoning in seeking suitable development on the property. Owners and developers have attempted to implement the main concepts of the CC-N designation, but have found that costs and constraints of the site are prohibitive, and the strong tendency in the market is for uses more in keeping with the C-N designation, similar to all other properties with highway frontage in the North College corridor area. This tendency has been borne out by changes to the CC-N zone district in 2003 and 2007, in which City Council approved the addition of Supermarkets and Large Retail Establishments respectively, as allowed uses in the CC-N. These changes moved the CC-N designation in the direction of the C-N, which allows a wider range of commercial development without size limits. When City Council added Supermarkets into the CC-N zone district in 2002, it was specifically to enable such development in the subject area at North College and Willox. Much of the discussion highlighted the fact that supermarket shopping centers are highly capitalized uses, and such uses appear necessary to overcome costs and constraints of the subject location, which requires significant off -site drainage and roadway infrastructure. However, a Supermarket anchor use is likely to require certain associated uses, particularly such as a gas station and/or drive -through restaurant, which are still not permitted under the CC-N designation. Expanding the potential for such uses would make development more realistically feasible, which would in turn help achieve numerous goals for infrastructure improvements and economic revitalization of the corridor. It has now become apparent to all 13 property owners, staff, and citizens in the North College area represented by the North Fort Collins Business Association that the C-N zone is a more realistic land use designation and a change is needed. Staff believes it is appropriate to simply "complete the shift' that has been occurring, and change the designation to C-N, thus designating the area as a part of Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 10 the highway corridor itself. This would make zoning consistent with the rest of the North College/Highway 287 frontage. A supermarket or other destination -anchor development fits the general purpose of the C-N zone district better than the CC-N zone. The proposed change would be incorporated into three land use maps, maintaining consistency among maps. These are the North College Corridor Plan's Framework Plan map, the City Structure Plan map, and the Zoning Map. In order to recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board would have to find that the rezoning is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property." The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code outlines mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezoning. In addition, the following subsection 2.9.4[H][3] lists additional factors that may be considered along with the mandatory requirements for this type of quasi-judicial rezoning, as follows: "In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is: compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural environment'; and (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern." After reviewing the Willox/North College Rezoning, File #16-08, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. This request for C-N land use and zoning designation adequately demonstrates a need to change the designation, based on the need for uses commonly associated with a supermarket development within the area currently designated as CC-N. 2. The request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan due to the request being part of ongoing revitalization and economic development efforts in and around the subject area. 3. CC-N zoning has been modified to allow a supermarket shopping center in the subject area, which would fit the purpose of the C-N zone district as well or better than it would fit the CC-N zone district. 4. The local community support that originally led to CC-N zoning has shifted over the past thirteen years due to problems with CC-N zoning regarding costs and constraints of the subject area. The same local community supports the proposed C-N zoning. 5. The proposed rezoning would not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. 6. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Staff recommends approval of the proposed change —it would be incorporated into three land use maps, maintaining consistency among maps. These are the North College Corridor Plan's Framework Plan map, the City Structure Plan map, and the Zoning Map. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 11 Member Lingle asked if it was safe to say this recommendation is predicated on the assumption a large -scaled supermarket based development might happen on this site. And, if the rezoning is approved and that kind of development did not occur, would the zoning then be in place that would allow a continuation of an auto related development pattern already there. Waido said yes, a development is being considered that would have a supermarket as its anchor with a gas station as a part of the project. It would be similar to what's found at the Safeway stores on Harmony and on Drake and Taft Hill. The change to CN would permit some associated uses such as auto related businesses. Other types of business that could appear are drive through restaurants. Member Lingle asked what Advance Planning staffs thought process was in not applying the new addition of permitted uses to the current zoning as compared to a rezoning. Waido spoke with project planner Clark Mapes. There was some discussion/consideration for the better way to go. The decision was made to look at what's been happening —the evolutions of changes being made in this area. Staff feels it's appropriate to continue that evolution and rezone the area to CN. A one -word answer would be the word "predictabilty." What the CN zone gives you is gasoline station listed as a permitted use. With staff/Board tools: a traffic development plan, a traffic analysis, and all the other criteria in Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC) there may be such negative impacts that you can't put a particular use on a subject property. It either generates too much traffic or has a negative impact on the natural environment. You can deal with the land use through design aspects and impact criteria. Waido says there are still questions why they went from the performance zoning system of the Land Development Guidance System to the new Land Use Code. We heard concerns from both the development community and from neighborhood organizations. They wanted the LUC to have predictability in it. They want to come to the planning department and say what's this red area on the map and what can happen in that area. Member Lingle said when he sat in on the committee meetings for the North College Urban Renewal Authority; there was a fairly strong sentiment against proliferating of additional auto related uses such as auto repair. Has that sentiment changed? Waido said there is some concern by the business owners that the community's perception of North College is it's an auto related corridor. They'd like to change that to a mixed -use retail destination and break that perception. In terms of implementation of auto related businesses, the only thing that got into the regulatory mechanism was a limitation on car dealerships so while it was an issue it wasn't a significant issue where they made a regulatory change to prohibit additional repair shops. Member Smith said in the staff report it said the subject area is a part of a continuous commercial corridor along North College Avenue. One long standing principal of the Comp Plan was there was some transitions for compatibility purposes from intensity to residential. Zones MMN to LMN and UE. By doing this it would extend that continuous commercial corridor along North College. Where would the break in intensity of uses begin to drop off? Waido acknowledged Larimer County continues north across the bridge and is also C. The County's commercial zone continues north to slightly past Shields on Hwy 287. You have a major wetland to the north and two other wetlands to the east. These would provide buffer areas to residential properties and would be preserved in any development plan. Smith said CCN is a zone of less intense use. Waido said there was a vision in 1995 to have this area be different but we've seen a period erosion of that vision by having larger retail establishments being listed as permitted uses. The markets forces are such that we think those uses are eventually going to happen on this property. The multi -story small footprint is probably not going to happen here. Member Rollins asked who received notification of rezoning. Did you go into the County residential area? Waido said not being the project planner he did not know what the total radius was. At a Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 12 minimum we met the requirements of the Land Use Code of 800 feet from the perimeter of the property. Rollins was concerned about the residential areas in the County getting proper notification. Would the 800 feet notification area include county residents north and east? Waido said he did not see a scale marking on his maps but he thought it would not encompass the whole residential area. He noted there's a mobile home park and notification would most likely be sent to the one property owner. It is unknown whether he notified the tenants. Waido thought it would be safe to say the residents in this area would support a competitive market between two grocery stores. He did not think the neighbors would object to the proposed uses. Chair Schmidt asked if there was a public meeting. Waido said not that he was aware --other than meetings with the North Fort Collins Business Association; he didn't believe there was an open house to get public comments on the rezoning. Member Rollins expressed concern regarding the intensity of use and wondered how well the standards/thresholds would work. Waido said checks are in place —one for instance is the North College Access Plan —developed by the City and CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation.) It outlines the standards for North College as relates to traffic flow, intersection signalization, curb cuts, etc. Chair Schmidt had some concerns in the same vein. In the agenda packet handouts there's a map with a triangle along the ditch. Is that a part of this proposal or a part of the GMA (Growth Management Area?) Waido responded that the triangle next to the ditch is not a part of the rezoning request --it's outside the city limits. The GMA follows the ditch. Chair Schmidt's biggest concern is with traffic impacts —moving to high intensity. Zone CN says it's intended for high traffic commercial corridors --currently it's zoned for moderate intensity. Schmidt said that once you leave the city limits there are no sidewalk improvements. The North College Access Plan speaks mostly to lanes and medians but when we look at the chief users of a grocery store, how are the people going to get from the mobile home park to the grocery store? We expect development to make those kinds of improvements but here the development ends right where the city ends. She understands that this project is considering asking for TIF (tax incremental financing) money. Would it be possible to use TIF to make improvements in the County? Waido said that TIF can be used for areas outside city limits if the improvement is a benefit to the GMA. Waido said CDOT also has a project in the works to improve this section of Highway 287 (from city limits to the Laporte cut-off.) He's not sure where they are with those plans. Schmidt thought CDOT did more with roadways —not sidewalks. Waido said he is not well versed in what CDOT does. Director Gloss said CDOT has prepared capital projects where they've included sidewalks. Member Lingle had a question for Director Gloss. With the addition of a permitted use provision, does that "ride" with the property?" Or if it's not followed up with a PDP in a year, does it expire? Gloss said it would be parcel specific. The most recent Land Use Code amendment is that it would run with the land, however, if any alterations are made to the approved use, (e.g. 150,000 square feet with that additional use) and you wished to expand it at some point in the future, you'd need to come back to the Board for review and approval of the expansion. Schmidt said the "corrected" proposed structure plan maps are still incorrect. Is this the only CCN site we're thinking of changing? Isn't there another CCN district? Waido said there's another CCN zone further south —north of Vine where the Old Town North Project is being constructed. He stated this has nothing to do with that area. Schmidt asked if there was also another CCN zone by Conifer. Waido replied yes, south of Conifer and east of College is also a CCN district. Chair Schmidt asked why we'd want to make the change to this site and not change the others if there's a general trend that the CCN zone is not workable for developers. Waido said that part of the answer is that we have Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 13 a "live" development proposal and the timing seems to be appropriate. Staff's conclusion was that perhaps we should be doing that for this site. Chair Schmidt asked what is the "orange spot" zoning on the Structure Plan --she believed it was the Albertson's shopping center. It's not CN on the map provided. Waido responded the Structure Plan did designate neighborhood commercial shopping centers with a different color. The underlying zoning is CN. Public Input Matt Brown, 423 Spaulding, owns one of the County parcels just across the ditch —the long skinny one to the right as shown on the map. If they do a big store and if they put turn lanes onto Willox, it is going to significantly change the traffic in that area. Like streets affected by Wal-Mart on Mulberry, more and more people are looking for north/south routes. He did not know what annexation plans are but if some low -density residential City properties are there and if that gets developed they would bridge the ditch where the park and residential area is. There are "a ton" of apartments, kids, and bicycles so you need to consider everything. You need to look from Lemay to Shields to Country Club when you look at impact. As far as the wetland barrier, he can't see it from his property but he knows half the people that live there. It would be a physical barrier but not a visual one. If they put a grocery store in without the right kind of requirements for zoning, they're going to be looking at concrete walls and dumpsters. Chair Schmidt said tonight the Board is looking at rezoning but when that development plan comes forward, we would see and discuss design detail more. A supermarket would be allowed in the current zoning. Some of the auto related businesses would not. Eric Holsapple, 1043 Eagle Drive in Loveland is a property owner in that area having purchased 23 acres. He is a developer and developed a King Soopers center in Loveland. He is looking at putting a center in this location. It would make the ancillary use such as a gas station more feasible. He'd like to use one word —predictability. The application and the process are very extensive and they're looking for some assurances that it can get there and they can get things done. He counted the number of things in the CN zone that are not allowed —movie theaters for instance. The physical restraints on a big part of the property are so much that the urban renewal will have to be a part of the model. It'll be a fairly large development to fix the streets, etc. End of Public Input Chair Schmidt said that at one point Waido said the change would create a wider range of benefits. What exactly is the wider range of benefits? Waido said perhaps it's more of a design thing —allow more auto related uses such as gas stations, restaurants, or drive through facilities. Schmidt asked if farmers markets are permitted in the CN zone. Waido responded no. Chair Schmidt asked why when we just redid the North College Corridor Plan in 2007 wasn't this considered a change to the plan. Waido said there are some sections from the North College Corridor Plan that staff member Mapes used for justifications for the change. He couldn't answer why now versus two years ago other than there is a developer is actively pursuing a development. He noted that a previous property owner, working with the same major anchor, could not bring a project to completion. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 14 Chair Schmidt had a question for Mr. Holsapple—are there grocery stores being construction now that do no have gas stations? Is that a requirement for super markets? Holsapple responded more and more are including gas stations --it's a part of their marketing with consumer loyalty cards/discounts. He could say that King Soopers is not doing any stores without gas stations. Schmidt asked if he was aware of many places in town that have a gas station on each comer (this is a unique corner in that three of the four corners have gas stations.) Holsapple said the gas station would not be right on the corner. It would be in the back part of the parking lot. The proposal they are considering would retain the restaurant (Pobre Pancho) and the car dealership on the corner. They would have fuel in close proximity. Member Rollins asked Director Gloss if we normally have neighborhood meetings —it appears sometime we do it and sometimes we don't. Gloss responded, as a Type II application —for quasi- judicial action, you would but it's not required explicitly for rezoning because that's a legislative action. Waido added that having been involved in a number of rezoning, i.e. West Mountain rezoning (west of Bryan and north of the golf course) —a residentially developed area; we conducted a neighborhood meeting there because not all the property owners were signatories to the petition for rezoning. When he did a rezoning at the northeast corner of Prospect and 1-25; the City did not do a neighborhood meeting rather the developer organized a neighborhood meeting because he wanted to make sure affected parties understood his plan. Chair Schmidt said that in 2005 the North College Market Analysis was done. That was a report that pretty heavily came out discouraging auto related uses. Is the feeling that we're not going to get any economic development on North College unless it's an auto -related use? Waido noted there've been a number of Board related questions with regard to auto -related use because those are the uses we are adding to the zone. The major anchor here, however, is a grocery store Chair Schmidt said she can understand and relate to developers desire to have predictability and that's one of the reasons we added the idea of permitted uses. If we give the developer predictability, however, we're taking away predictability from every body else in this situation by changing the zoning and allowing all the other uses historically we said we did not want to encourage. It seems like a large shift for one particular purpose that could probably be addressed in another way. That's what worries her a little bit —two years we were almost at this point and then it went away. This might go away too yet we've opened the door. Chair Schmidt said a lot of allowed uses noted in the staff report won't come before Planning and Zoning (e.g. vehicle repair, vehicle sales, and warehouses.) Some are reviewed by the Board but a lot of them are just administrative reviews. She's also concerned about shifting to a zone that's high intensity from one that's moderate intensity with traffic constraints. Waido noted administrative reviews are still public hearings —it's just a difference as to who makes the decision. Notification requirements are the same, development standards are the same —it's just who makes the decision. Member Stocker moved the Board recommend to City Council the approval of Willox/North College Rezoning and Related Items, # 16-08. In support of his motion, he would like to cite the Findings and Facts on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report with special reference to item 2— the request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan due to the request being part of ongoing revitalization and economic development efforts in and around the subject area. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Member Lingle said he'd not be supporting the motion —not because he doesn't agree with what staff wants to do, he just thinks we're using the wrong method to get there. He agrees with a lot of the comments that Chair Schmidt made in terms of the unpredictability of what could happen if we Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 15 blanketly approve the rezoning and then a large scale development does not occur. He wasn't' sure the use list provided in the staff report is a comprehensive list or not but there are 23 additional uses listed some of which are very objectionable from his point of view —like the C-stores without the % mile space requirement. He doesn't think we want to go there. What he's heard from Director Gloss in terms of the application of the addition of a permitted use procedure that we just approved seems like a much more appropriate way to handle this and still give the developer the kind of predictability that they're looking for. Advance Planning could come in next month and look for the two additional uses you're asking for and that decision would ride with the land. The predictability part would be just as strong as would a rezoning and we wouldn't have concerns and worries about all the baggage that goes along with that rezoning. He is not at all opposed to the proposal in terms of what you'd like to accomplish and other than the fact that we have three gas stations now. Gas pumps related to a grocery store and drive through lanes for a pharmacy would be fine if those specific requests can be tailored to exactly what you want and bring that back as a free-standing proposal as opposed to the rezoning. Chair Schmidt feels the same way Member Lingle does. We certainly wants to support the revitalization and we want to find a way to make the project workable but on the other hand, we owe it to the rest of the North College community to have a certain amount of predictability. It just surprised her that the one thing that would not be allowed is farmers markets which happened spontaneously on a lot of the vacant lots there now. She said we've developed a useful tool (permitted uses) that is perfect solution for this situation. Member Stockover stated he agrees to a certain degree but he doesn't see a lot of what's worrying others happening on this property. He weighed it and believes we need a big anchor therefor anything to happen (outweighing the possibility of it being piecemeal with a number of little developments.) The only thing he doesn't really like is four gas stations on the same corner. He will be supporting the motion. Member Wetzler said he's familiar with the development in Loveland that Mr. Holsapple has completed. It turned a relatively useless piece of land into a remarkable addition to the community. He noted that during the work session, staff member Mapes said the gas station would be located closer to the "s" on the map in the red area —not at the corner. He thought everything could be done in one step with rezoning. He'll be supporting the motion. Member Smith said he's also like to see the development occur as proposed as well but he does agree with Member Lingle on the principle of other uses. He wouldn't support the motion --he thinks there's a better way to accomplish this. Member Rollins concurs with Members Lingle & Schmidt. She's completely excited about a development at that location but the Board did work very hard on the ability to add specific uses. That's really what the developer wants to do anyway and not open it up to a huge amount of other uses. Things do change —something could change with King Soopers—we don't know yet but we'd be putting all of these uses here forever. She will not be supporting the motion but she would love to see something happen there. Chair Schmidt recommended from the comments that were made that if the motion fails, the Board make a motion with a recommendation including some of the comments noted above —might be a better path. She thinks that would be a positive thing to do —send a recommendation to Council with where we think it should head. The motioned failed 3:4 with Members Smith, Schmidt, Lingle and Rollins dissenting. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 16 Assistant City Attorney Tempel said with the motion failing, he would suggest that the Board entertain a motion to recommend denial to City Council so there's a specific recommendation being made by the Planning & Zoning Board. Member Lingle made a motion recommending denial of the recommendation to City Council for the Willox/North College Rezoning and Related Items, # 16-08 based on the belief that other methods to accomplish the same goal are available in the Land Use Code and would be more appropriate for this specific piece of land and would have with it additional safeguards in place to protect the City and the neighborhood from some of the adverse effects that could happen with a straight rezoning. Temple suggested the use of the criteria for reviewing rezoning requirements as listed on page 6 of the staff report. Member Lingle noted the problem he has with that is it's the criteria in support but in denial the issue is that it's not warranted by changed conditions, etc. because that would be saying that the rezoning is not appropriate at all. What we're trying to convey is that we feel the philosophy behind what is trying to be accomplished is valid but there's a better way to accomplish it. Chair Schmidt asked if there was a section of the Land Use Code related to permitted use that should be cited as a better way to go. Waido suggested it may be a simple answer if it's okay with Temple — the Board just made a motion to deny. One of the components to deny was a recommended change to the North College Corridor Plan so by not approving the change to the corridor plan, then the zoning request to CCN would not be compatible or not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The conclusion could be that we're recommending denial of the rezoning because it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Temple replied that's one way to do that if that's the Board's conclusion. Chair Schmidt asked if they could say that using the other method would keep the zoning more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining it and/or requesting an addition of the permitted uses. Waido said the staff person who had lead on the request (Clark Mapes) wrote that he doesn't feel that the approach you're considering does fit well with the intent of the recent Code change that allow uses to be added to specific sites. He felt that process was more for houses on an arterial street or corners of arterial streets which showed unique limited circumstances and not to interject commercial uses into commercial corridors —Waido admitted that he's just the messenger in this case. Assistant City Attorney Temple suggested another idea would be to conclude (don't let him put words in your mouth) that the proposed rezoning, because all of the uses that would be permitted would not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and all of those changes are not warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood. Some of them could be dealt with through the addition of permitted uses process, but the rezoning (with all of the uses that come with it) would not be consistent with the Comp Plan. Member Smith said from his estimation we might find that the Comp Plan supports the uses we're talking about being acceptable but where we stop short based on what we've read in the Comp Plan and the staff report are not supported. Those are the uses we find objectionable —they certainly have not been demonstrated to be consistent with the Comp Plan.. That's why unfortunately it's on on/off situation. Member Lingle withdrew his motion and recommended a motion that includes the points iust made by Member Smith. Planning & Zoning Board July 17, 2008 Page 17 Chair Schmidt made a motion recommending denial of the recommendation to City Council for the Willox/North College Rezoning and Related Items, # 16-08 based on the belief said the Board does not feel that all the uses allowed in the new zone would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and are not warranted by changed conditions in the neighborhood. The Board feels that using the addition of a permitted use option would keep things more in the spirit of the intended zoning and comprehensive plans. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motioned passed 4:3 with Members Wetzler, Stockover and Campana dissenting. Member Smith asked how fast it would occur to have a permitted use. Chair Schmidt asked if it had to be a part of a Planned Development Plan or can it come as an applicant or staff recommendation to allow these permitted uses? Director Gloss said it would have to come with enough information associated with a development plan to be able to make a determination whether those specific uses are appropriate. The applicant could move further along in the development process then submit a stand alone application or they could combine that request with the development plan. Member Stockover asked since this is a recommendation to City Council, will they still vote on this? Gloss said yes. There is a chance it could go to Council and they would over -ride our vote. Gloss said that's correct. Member Wetzler asked how soon it would be going to City Council. Waido said he believes it's been tentatively scheduled for the 19"' of August but he doesn't know if that schedule can be met. Member Stockover asked if we could start working on something before they hear it. Gloss said that's something we'd have to discuss as a staff —he didn't have a definitive answer for him. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. A"", 0&t <:� - Steve Olt, Interim Ctirrent Planning Director BrigitWSchmidt, Chair