Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/19/2009Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: Rollins and Wetzler Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Mapes, Buffington, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Of special note: • Item # 2, Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage, Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93/D, there was a typo on the applicant's letter it was dated 2008 (not 2009) in error. The applicant is also aware the extension may only be for a period of one year. • Item # 3, 726 W. Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming use, #4-09, an amended finding for only Section 2.8.2 (h)(3). Staff received a phone call from a neighbor indicating they opposed the request. They have not provided a letter or any other information. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. There were no requests to pull any items from the consent agenda. 1. Minutes from the January 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Hearing 2. Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage, Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93/D 3. 726 W. Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming use, #4-09 4. Midori Subdivision — Out of City Utility Service Request Member Stockover moved to approve the consent agenda which includes: item # 1--January 15, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes, item # 2--Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage, Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93/D, item # 3--726 W. Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming use, #4-09, and item # 4-- Midori Subdivision — Out of City Utility Service Request. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0. Discussion Items: 5. Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility — Addition of Permitted Use, # 44-08A 6. Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility Overall Development Plan, # 44-08 Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 2 The Public Hearing for the following two items was combined Project: Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility — Addition of Permitted Use, # 44-08A Project Description: This is a request to add Warehouse and Professional Office as Additions of Two Permitted Uses in the Urban Estate zone district specifically for the PSD property located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and County Road 5. The property is undeveloped and is presently leased for irrigated agriculture. The parcel is-99.11 acres in size and zoned U-E, Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval of the Warehouse with Conditions Denial of the Professional Office Project: Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility Overall Development Plan, # 44-08 Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for the 99.11 acres located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and County Road 5. The purpose of the O.D.P. is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases while allowing flexibility for detailed planning in subsequent phases., An O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop the property. The O.D.P. contains both Urban Estate and Industrial zoning. ' The westerly portion of the property would be devoted to various service functions for the Poudre School District and, possibly, the Larimer County Road and Bridge Department. The easterly portion would be reserved for a future school. For the Poudre School District, these functions include a central receiving materials warehouse, two office buildings, a transportation fleet maintenance building, covered parking for school buses and a fleet fueling station. For Larimer County, these functions may include transportation fleet maintenance and storage for the Road and Bridge Department as well as a future warehouse and a general parking and equipment staging area. Recommendation: Approval with Condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: Addition of Permitted Uses Chief City Planner Ted Shepard reported the two proposed additional uses are not permitted under U-E. Originally four conditions of approval were recommended for the Warehouse, a fifth (E) has been added —a copy of the revision was distributed -to the Board. Staff recommends denial of the Professional Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 3 Office, based on insufficient data. In order to ensure compliance with the applicable criteria, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: A. Any development of the warehouse shall comply with the requirements of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program, at the time that public street improvements are required by the City of Fort Collins to be constructed. B. At the time of submittal for a Site Plan Advisory Review for the warehouse, the Poudre School District shall conduct a neighborhood information meeting to ascertain and mitigate any impacts covered under Section 3.5.1(1) — Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment and Section 3.5.1(J) — Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. C. At the time of submittal for a Site Plan Advisory Review for warehouse, the Poudre School District shall provide a connecting walkway from the building entrance to Prospect Road in compliance with Section 3.5.3(B)(1) — Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking or in conjunction with the private access drive. D. At the time of submittal for the warehouse, the Poudre School District shall demonstrate compliance with architectural standards contained in Section 3.5.3(D) — Character and Image. E. Approval of a Warehouse in the Urban Estate zone is further stipulated by the following: • -Development shall be by the Poudre School District only; • The size shall be limited to approximately 30,000 square feet; • The architectural style, massing, height and form shall be as indicated on the architectural rendering submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board at their public hearing.of February 19, 2009; • The location of the warehouse shall be approximately as indicated on the illustrative Plan submitted to the Planning & Zoning Board at their public hearing of February 29, 2009. Overall Development Plan In addition to the above project description, Chief City Planner Ted Shepard noted the purpose of the ODP is to generally plan development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases while allowing flexibility for detail planning in subsequent phases: An ODP does not establish any vested right to develop the property. The ODP contains both UE and Industrial zoning —there's a little sliver of Industrial on the very west edge. An ODP does not expire; however, it can be amended as time goes on. The westerly portion of the ODP would be devoted to various service functions for the Poudre School District (PSD) and possibly Larimer County Road & Bridge (LCRB--although they are not a co -applicant at this time). The easterly portion (approximately 30 acres) would be reserved for a future school, . possibly a middle school or a junior high. For the PSD these functions could include a central receiving materials warehouse (which is the subject of one of the additions of permitted use), the two office buildings, transportation/fleet maintenance building, covered parking for school buses and a fleet fueling station. For Larimer County these functions may include transportation/fleet maintenance, storage for the Road & Bridge Department, as well as future warehouse and general parking and equipment staging area. This is very similar to the operation they presently have on East Vine Street. Staff recommends approval of Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility O.D.P., #44- 08, subject to the following condition: The O.D.P. contains two uses not permitted in the U-E, Urban Estate zone. Therefore, in addition to the list of permitted uses in Section 4.2, Urban Estate Zone District, only. those uses specifically authorized by the separate action of the Planning and Zoning Board, under the provisions of Section 1.3.4, may be added to the Urban Estate portion of the O.D.P. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 4 Applicant's Presentation: Ed Holder, Construction Manager for the Poudre School District, said he prepared a short presentation to leave the bulk of the time this evening for public input. The District originally purchased the 100-acre site at East Prospect and County Road 5 in 1999. At that time, it was identified as a future high school site. After some input by the City (not really desiring to see a high school at this location) and after reevaluation they've considered some other uses, including an elementary, middle or K-8 school at the site. One of the issues they are currently struggling with is they have outgrown their complex on Laporte Avenue. As the district has grown, they have been very limited as to where they can expand. Their warehouse facilities, bus fleet, and administrative functions are very compact on that site. The Prospect site has been selected for two reasons, one because it is land the District owns and two because of it's proximity to 1-25 and the City's main arterials. As they look at the distribution rates of deliveries that come into the Laporte site then go out to the schools; they believe the East Prospect site, with its warehouse and transportation facilities, would be more efficient as most of the (food service, paper goods, etc.) come from Denver. The ODP has been broken into three sections. The eastern section is being reserved to construct a future elementary, middle, or K-8 school. On the remaining two-thirds of the property, they are proposing a support services facility. Additionally, there's a small triangle on the western side of the property bisected by an inlet canal. That section is currently zoned Industrial and they don't know what the future plans are for that piece of property. He referred to a drawing that had been revised since the submittal of the application. They have now aligned the drawing with the original ODP and it is the document presented at the public meetings. He thought it was appropriate, even though it was not a part of the ODP approval tonight, to give the Board an idea of their plans for this particular piece of property. He said it is a 20-year plan —it is not an immediate program that they are going out to build in the near future. They believe it is prudent to master plan this site. For that reason, they did not submit under the normal Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) the District could do by State statute. If that were the case, they would only be showing the warehouse portion and not showing the remainder of the proposed development. Because of the relationship they've built with the City, they felt it was important to voluntary submit themselves to the ODP process and present what they are anticipating as a 20-year build out. They would like to give the public an opportunity to comment. They are proposing to move their bus fleet facility, the covered housing for the buses, housing for the bus drivers (break room and dispatch area), the fleet services (garage for bus repairs),.the warehousing functions and a joint fueling facility. Holder said as they started to plan the site, they had some conversations with Larimer County and found they were also looking to do some master planning (to try to replace their Vine Street site). As they started to talk about the common amenities, it made sense to master plan some things together. They both need a fueling facility. When they compared their fleet facilities needs, they both occasionally need large engine hoists, chassis washes, etc. They would jointly share the costs of the some of the infrastructure associated with developing the site. Holder said as Shepard mentioned, Larimer County Road & Bridge functions may include transportation/fleet maintenance very similar to the operation they presently have on East Vine Street. At this time, they do not have a contract to sell any portion to them. This is strictly just a master planning effort. . Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 5 On the revised 20-year build out drawings, the only thing that has moved is the alignment of McLaughlin to the east. That is aligned with the ODP now —that was a mistake in the drawing —what the Board had was an earlier version. The drawing is an attempt to show the spacing of buildings on the property. They are also designing some berms to both the north and south so they can buffer the surrounding neighborhoods. The covered bus section is intended to demonstrate a typical home in Kitchell Estates and what the buffer (in relationship to what the covered bus parking) would look like. It's approximately 375 feet. They are proposing the construction of a 6-8 foot buffer with landscaping along the north portion of the property. They will also do a similar buffer to the south along Prospect Road. During the work session there were some questions about distances from homes to the proposed warehouse. They were not able to do a section -cut because it's a rather large area to demonstrate. They did a quick graphic that shows it's basically a quarter of a mile from the nearest home to what would be Phase 1 of the project. The concerns raised at the work session and the concerns raised by neighbors in their letters have been primarily in the areas of: Traffic Impact of 1-25 and Prospect —the issue of traffic impact is the amount of traffic that could potentially be on Prospect Road and the interchange of 1-25 and Prospect Road. The District has done a traffic impact study. It's been submitted and reviewed by staff. They are not, at that time, being required to make modifications to the interchange. We are all aware of the CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) interchange studies that_are taking place and CDOT has started to propose some designs. It's his understanding that interchange modifications are in the neighborhood of $35-50 million and no single project can really absorb those costs. The improvements to Prospect that are being recommending in the phased traffic study will all be implemented as part of the project. It is their intent to fulfill all their obligations. Environmental Impact --light, sound such as back-up beepers, diesel smells, groundwater contamination. The District is obligated to follow City, State and Federal obligations just like everyone else would be. They want to be good stewards. They certainly would not do anything at this site that would violate any rules or regulations. There were neighborhood concerns about sounds being emitted —particularly back- up beepers. That is something they looked into and they cannot be turned off. Holder suggested either through buffering or other mitigations; they will reduce the impact of those sounds. .Zoning capability —this is zoned UE and public schools are approved within that zoning district. The other issues have been the differences between the definition of public facilities and community facilities. City staff has interpreted all their transportation related functions on this site to be public facilities and their non -transportation related uses (i.e. the warehouse and future office) as community facilities. Those are not currently listed as an approved use that's why they are requesting the addition of permitted use. The warehouse is Phase 1 and they are looking in the neighborhood of a 30,000 to 40,000 square foot facility --they are still in the process of finalizing that building footprint. They thought it was an accessory use and tried to argue that fact to staff. Based on City staff's recommendation, however, they have moved forward with the request for the addition of permitted use. He understands the Board's concern over the proposed future office. At this point, they don't really know what they're planning to do. He has no problem with withdrawing that portion of the request from the addition of permitted use.. They would only be asking the Board to approve the warehouse portion at this time. Holder showed examples of the type of architectural building they are considering. They are not intending to use a "Butler" building. They would propose a building more in line with their sustainable design guidelines. The best example might be the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 6 building. It is a metal building with different types of metal panels with some color and masonry introduced. The building would also have different rooflines. Holder thanked the Board and said he would be available for any questions. Board Questions: Chair Schmidt asked if they also had a site for school buses on Trilby. Holder said they do have a southern facility on Trilby and they would probably still maintain some level of service at the Laporte Avenue site to serve the west side of town and the mountain schools. Chair Schmidt asked if the bus drivers would: drive to the site, park their cars, and take the school bus to pickup the students, than return the buses. Holder said yes. Chair Schmidt asked if after the students are delivered to the schools in the morning they come back and go out again in the afternoon. Holder . said yes. Chair Schmidt asked how many would be using the interstate. Holder said he couldn't really say how many would be using the interstate. They do have buses that will be going to Wellington and Timnath. Chair Schmidt asked if they were planning at a later date to sell or lease a portion of the land to La rimer County. Holder said they would look at both options. He believes, their obligations are the same as the Districts —they need to own the property that they would be building on. Chair Schmidt referred to the map where it said future industrial warehouse, is that where you're planning to have the office buildings. Holder said that would be the area where they would put the office buildings in if they were to do that. He said they don't know what they're going to do with them (future industrial warehouse) and they would certainly be willing to withdraw that from tonight's request. They would bring it back at some point in the future when they had more information to share. Chair Schmidt asked Shepard if they were to approve warehouses as a permitted use, if the District wanted to add another warehouse in the future, would it already be a permitted use. Shepard said no, the Board would be approving this warehouse at approximately this location for approximately the size on the application. What he heard tonight was 40,000 square feet, he said the Board might want to factor that size into their consideration —he'd not heard that number before. This is not a use variance. What Chair Schmidt is describing is a text amendment. Schmidt said if they wanted to do another warehouse or the office building or anything else in the future, they would need to return. Shepard said correct. Chair Schmidt asked if the exit out on McLaughlin Lane has been changed. Holder said they had originally proposed making a connection there but there are a number of utilities that come in there including the City of Greeley 60 inch water line, the ditch, and the Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line. They've done an analysis of what it would take to cross that and it gets very expensive. They are proposing moving that access point to anew location. An amendment was made to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that addressed moving that location --staff received that amendment at the work session on the 131h. Holder said the ODP shows access points at those locations —they just changed the drawings to match the ODP application. Chair Schmidt said it seems they did not plan to do the bus portion of the plan for 20 years. Holder said the overall program is a 20-year program. They currently have funding to start the warehouse portion. The remainder would be tied to a future bond issue. The school would be one of the last things to be developed and would be tied to need based on future growth. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 7 Member Lingle asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman how the Board should evaluate the potential impacts from the Larimer County portion of this site since the County is not a co -applicant. Lingle said there could be considerable site access issues with road graders, salt/sand dump trucks, snow plows and things that are heavier and slower moving as far as in and out of the site and traffic backup. Lingle asked if it was any different than any other ODP where some of the potential uses are speculative and unknown. Eckman said it is the same as any other ODP where the uses are speculative—they'should not be considered in their deliberations tonight. Member Lingle asked if Larimer County's impact on the site had been factored into the traffic report — there are specific references to school buses but he wasn't sure about the dump trucks. Consultant Eric Bracke said yes, it had been factored in as a light industrial use. Chair Schmidt asked Bracke if a school bus or a large vehicle is considered as two vehicles with regard to the space they take in a turn or stacking lane and was that taken into consideration in a traffic -study. Bracke said most cities do not require adjustment. CDOT, however, does require you to use a passenger car equivalent so a bus or a truck would be considered to be 1.3 vehicles. Chair Schmidt asked when CDOT would be involved. Bracke said CDOT would not be looking at this. Member Lingle said he'd like to explore the District's rationale behind the CDP submittal and their future plans for planning approvals. The Planning & Zoning Board has a good understanding of the relationship with the school district in terms of Site Plan Review, their authority, and their limits but the audience may not. Lingle asked if by voluntarily going through the ODP process, you are representing to the City that the District is willing to abide by the ODP in terms of your future Site Plan Advisory submittals. (Will it be a binding document?) Holder said it's really their intent to try to follow the City process. They want to be more active player in participating with the City. He acknowledged -the City doesn't quite know what to do with the school district --how do they fit into the process especially if they try to develop a modified process. They felt it was important to follow the ODP process because of the complexities of this project and that it will be a 20-year master plan. They will bring back a Site Advisory Plan for. the warehouse and the other functions. They would also ask the County, if they do end up selling land to them, to participate in this process. They would like to see the whole site developed as a true master plan —architecturally and how they work through the development review process. Member Lingle said is it also true that you do not intend to follow the ODP with a Project Development Plan submittal per the City's PDP process. Holder said it would be a Site Plan Advisory. Lingle said in that case, the Board could comment only on location, extent, and character. Lingle said he only outlined that so everyone in the room understands what the Board's approval means. Holder said they truly value the City and the Planning Board's input on this project but he cannot say that the current or a future Board of Education may not wish to follow State statute and potentially overrule the Planning Board's ruling. He said that is an option the Board of Education has. From a staff's standpoint, it is really their .intent to recommend the OPD/Site Plan Advisory Review to the Board of Education (BOE); The BOE values the input staff gets from the City and State. Potentially, it would be a rare case where the BOE would overrule the recommendations of City staff and the Planning & Zoning Board. Member Lingle asked Eckman about the underlying zoning. If the Board were to approve the addition of a permitted use, does that bind the School District regardless of the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR)? Eckman said no. If the Board brings forward an ODP/Project Development Plan then we are still in the Land Use Code. If it's a Site Plan Advisory Review that's a totally separate process from any decision made tonight with regard to uses and the ODP. If the District is going to go off of that track and onto the statutory track, then you look at the statute. The Board would look at location, character and extent. It would give the Board latitude with what you do with the ODP (because it's related to location, character, Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 8 and extent. Eckman said that if Board denies the ODP, the School Board with a two-thirds vote could override the Planning & Zoning Board's denial. Member Lingle apologized for belaboring the point, he just wanted to have a clear understanding. Lingle said Shepard said with the warehouse addition of permitted use the Board is approving that warehouse in that location at that scale. Lingle's understanding is the District could come back with a Site Plan Advisory Review and say they need a 50,000 square.foot warehouse —not in compliance with an approved addition of a permitted use. If the Board denied the addition of permitted use, District staff could go back_ to the BOE and with a two-thirds vote get that approved. Eckman said they could come back with a different plan entirely —have different uses that had not even been approved. They could make the argument that the warehouse fits the character because the Planning Board would have approved that use for this site. The approval of the warehouse use, if that is what the Board does this evening, would help to set the stage that warehouse uses are appropriate in the location, character, and extent review. Chair Schmidt asked Eckman if the District comes in with a Site Plan Advisory Review is that still limited , to the uses approved for that zoning district. Eckman said they could return with anything so long as it fits the location, character, and extent of the property. Chair Schmidt asked Shepard asked what would be considered part of the facilities that would be an acceptable use on this site. Would transportation facilities have been a permitted use? Shepard said that's correct. They covered, at a fine level of detail, what would be in the warehouse. Auto parts are not a part of transportation facility hence the request for permitted use. Public Input: Danyel McGraw lives in the neighborhood and is a bus driver for the County. She disagrees with the fact that the use of that property will not change the traffic on Prospect. She's a cyclist and works on the west side of 1-25. She believes it's dangerous for her and other cyclists. She would hope CDOT would change but they don't know that they'll be changing the road anytime soon. She believes it's hazardous when she's driving one of the County buses. The white line is non-existent in some places and if they were to expand the road, you'd be in the ditch or on someone's private property. She believes that Prospect needs to be changed but if they were going to do this, it would require taking over someone's personal property. Larry Ecklad owns 24 acre (the tree farm south of District's property). He's the largest property owner that abuts their property. He has two questions. Does the City have any recourse as to the quality of the development? The buffer trees appear to be 50-year sizes and there appear to be only 15 trees along a large area. If it were a City approved plan, he believes a higher density would be required. His second area of concern is storm drainage. He understands they have the right to build but he does not believe they have the right to flood his property. If their drainage comes across and enters the Timnath Ditch, it will create problems. There are extenuating circumstances in that area due to the Timnath Ditch and the Boxelder Drainage Plan. Not only will his property be affected, there are many others in the surrounding area that will be affected. The issue of drainage was not addressed at the public meetings. Will the City be legally liable if his property is flooded or will it be solely the School District's responsibility? Dennis Zierick lives on Meadowaire. This is the third meeting he's attended. Basically, he believes the "dirt's a whole lot cheaper" in the County than it is in the City. He said they get the nice pictures and the nice plans but they don't get any consideration for what's going to happen to the neighborhood. One concern is the condition of Prospect. It's a good street right now but they are not required to make the street any better. He believes they can create a bottleneck and they can make it unsafe. The same thing occurred on Trilby. Five feet past Transfort property, it's two lanes. When school buses stops, the Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 9 children step out and into a ditch. There are no bicycle lanes or curb and gutter. The message is if it's city, with city taxes they get improvements. They currently have road control problems and drainage problems; now they're going to "slam" 50 more school into the mix. 90% of the District's business is on the west side of the interstate but instead, because the dirt's cheaper on the east side, they're going to stick it in the middle of these three neighborhoods. He doesn't understand their motivation —yes we need a high school, yes we need an administration building, no we don't need a "grease -monkey" operation for snowplows sitting in their back yard. He doesn't want to look at a fuel barrel when he walks outside his back yard. Neighborhood Presentation (Representing E. Prospect Road, Homestead Estates, Kitchell Estates, Serratoga Falls, and Timnath Meadows Estates): Rich Cape lives at 4711 Kitchell Way, directly north of the proposed fueling station in this proposed development. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. As neighbors they have researched issues, talked with each other as well as many people from various organizations. They have learned a lot about the Land Use Code, the development approval process, transportation planning and funding, traffic studies, the School District's facility needs and other issues. They have worked hard to understand the important considerations and how best to participate in this process. We hope this presentation will more effectively use time. They ask hope this will allow the Board to fully consider and deliberate about all the pertinent information and viewpoints. They are depending on the Board's understanding and commitment to the guiding principles of the Land Use Code, particularly with respect to Urban Estate zone to enable to make the appropriate recommendation for this project, -which they believe is to find a more suitable site. When they first learned of the project in November, three issues immediately rose to the forefront. It is those three issues that are the basis for their concerns and opposition. 1. They are the significantly overburdened infrastructure at the 1-25 and Prospect interchange and along Prospect Road with its current problematic traffic and safety situations would be further worsened beyond acceptable levels by this project's operation. 2. Incompatibility of the proposed land use with surrounding rural residential acreages. 3. Concern for environmental impact on air quality, ground water, noise and light levels as well as the dramatic negative impact on the vista. Jim Hibbeln, 1647 Enchantment, lives southeast of the project. He'd like to present the board with a petition signed unanimously among his 19 neighbors. Traffic and infrastructure are inextricably linked. The following are the infrastructure challenges: First, the three bridges over the irrigation ditches in the immediate vicinity of the project: • The bridge on Prospect east of the Interstate over the Lake Canal Ditch has a guardrail on the north side that meets no standard. • The bridge on Prospect west of 1-25 over Boxelder Creek is functionally obsolete for current traffic and as evidenced by the accident history. The bridge hydraulic capacity is inadequate for the drainage of Box Elder Creek. • The bridge on County Road 5 located 25 feet north of the Prospect / CR 5 intersection has timber rail and is too close to the intersection to accommodate the planned traffic amount projected in the draft TIS and truck turning radii. • Structure inspection reports for the City and the County, which includes ratings and traffic counts, were not included in the TIS or site plan and these should be referenced. The inspections are performed on 2-year interval by CDOT contract per Federal regulation. At the second neighborhood meeting, when the developer was asked if the District would replace the bridge over the canal, he responded, "no." Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 10 The current pavement structure on Prospect Road east of 1-25 is not structurally capable of withstanding the heavy weights of the vehicles that are projected for the plan build -out. It is a county road designed for local traffic. • The heavy truck traffic used to place the water lines induced pavement blowouts on Prospect Road, showing the pavement structure is inadequate. • The draft TIS does not consider any current or future ADT (Average Daily Traffic) or ADTT (Average Daily Truck Traffic) for any of the roads: mainline, secondary, or frontage. CDOT and ALL other agencies use this data to design for capacity and pavement structure. • There does not seem to be an assessment of whether the pavement will hold up to the heavy truck traffic inherent in this project's operation. • Have the pavement issues been addressed in the City's Pavement Management plan? There is significant public safety hazards associated with the potential failure of the road pavement and bridge guardrails, particularly with large vehicles going over the small structures. They have seen'a car in Boxelder Creek when the guardrail failed just last year and the bridge remained un-repaired for several months. They did not see in the Staff Report for the Board or the Staff Project Review document any reference to the structural viability of the bridges along Prospect or the Prospect Road pavement. We are concerned for thesafety of those who drive on them. Deborah Cape lives at 4711 Kitchell Way. The Prospect/1-25 Interchange- this is where the inadequate infrastructure capacity and traffic become the perfect storm for failure. All of the traffic pictures included in this presentation was taken on 2 different, random weekdays, over 20-minute periods. The overpass on 1-25 is functionally obsolete for the current traffic per CDOT Structure inspection reports cited in the North 1-25 draft EIS. (EIS cover page on slide) The Draft TIS done by Eric Bracke shows existing LOS figures that don't match what we experience during actual peak hours on a daily basis. For example: • The lack of eastbound or westbound L-turn lanes is already extremely problematic. All traffic is backed up in either direction until the L-turns are permitted to move through the intersection. • The large, long trucks entering and exiting the interchange since the rest area was moved create gridlock on the overpass, the ramps and onto the interstate. The weigh station truck acceleration lane often contains cars waiting to exit onto the ramp. • There is inadequate room to create L-turn lanes here without complete re -construction of the interchange, according to CDOT. The TIS report states that the peak hours at this interchange are 7-9 am and 4-6 pm. She stated that they, who use this interchange on a daily basis, know that the interchange experiences a shorter morning peak, from 7:30 — 8:30, and an evening peak of 4:30 — 5:30 pm. By reporting the conclusions based on the longer "peak", the problems that occur, even now, are under -represented or diluted by adding in the slower time periods. They asked at a neighborhood meeting to look at the 15-minute incremental breakdown at the I- 25/Prospect interchange during the shorter, real peak time, but have not received that information, as yet. They can just tell you that there are already significant delays during these times every weekday. It is not the trips generated by workers in vehicles coming to and from the facility that concerns us. It is the size, weight, and large turning radius, slow acceleration vehicles driving to and from the PSD facility that will ultimately lead to untenable traffic congestion and infrastructure failures. Planning &Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 11 Brandon Roeder lives at 1616 Carriage Road just south of the proposed area. He will be speaking to more traffic issues, including safety. Currently, there are frequent traffic laws violations during existing peak hour periods causing unsafe conditions, for example: • Cars traveling west pass on the right around vehicles attempting to turn left onto the southbound entry ramp to 1-25, where there are no actual traffic lanes. That has been observed more than once by many neighbors. • On the northbound 1-25 ramp, cars skirt around the long line waiting to turn left onto Prospect. They turn right on Prospect and then make a U-turn right in the middle of the road to head back west to avoid waiting in the long queue on the ramp. The draft TIS states on page 21 that, "As part of the analysis, the existing geometrics of the interchange were modeled with the build - out and there were major capacity failures at the 4 key intersections near the interchange. It was therefore assumed that improvements had been made to the interchange in the analysis for the background traffic." The conclusion of the report on page 29 of the draft states: "The interchange is assumed to be reconstructed by this timeframe (2015) by other developments" At our 2nd neighborhood meeting, Eric Bracke stated literally, that without the changes to the 1-25 interchange; it would be, quote, "a mess at the mid-term build -out." In the Statement of Adequacy from the TIS: "The transportation facilities will be adequate and available to serve this development... All applicable LOS (level of standards) will be met since all transportation facilities are in place or will be in place upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy." These statements are unverifiable. The economic conditions and the circumstances of the possible funding sources do not support these assumptions. If someone came up with the funding, if they started today, an optimistic timeline is 6 years to complete the interchange, according to Long Nguyen, the Project Engineer of the North 1-25 EIS and Eric Bracke. A special tax district with the identified funding sources would need to be in place before the CDOT 1601 process of analysis could even begin. There are no funding sources on the horizon, including the White Brothers, according to Dave White on December 18, 2008. Neither the North 1-25 Corridor EIS nor the North Front Range Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization identified this interchange as one slated for re -construction. It was not listed because of lack of need, but because of other higher priority projects and the competition for funding. The bottom line is that this interchange is already heavily stressed and would likely reach capacity failure on a regular basis at the midterm phase of this development, in 2015. The neighbors believe that unless these infrastructure issues are addressed, adding additional traffic loading on Prospect Road from County Road 5, through the current 1-25 interchange to the Welcome Center, would be an irresponsible action. Barry Nichols lives at 1601 Meadowaire Drive in Homestead Estates, which is just south of the site in question. He'd like to talk about their concerns related to zoning and land use compatibility starting with the reference: Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 12 Land Use Incompatibility "The purpose of the Land Use Code, which is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code..." We have already heard a brief history of the zoning of this parcel, which is now U-E. We were involved in the Galatia annexation process, and afterwards, received a letter from Susan Kirkpatrick, the Mayor at that time, summarizing the outcome and future intent for this parcel and the general area. She wrote that Council had unanimously voted to annex the 115-acre parcel with several conditions, including a requirement for development to be single family, low -density residential as a PUD to ensure that future area residents could be actively involved in the public review process. She further states, "the three zoning conditions will help guarantee that development on the Galatia property will be compatible with existing subdivisions in the area and will enhance the area's overall quality of life." Since that time, development has followed this intention established by the 1990 City Council. With this guidance in mind, our first major point is: The CDP does not comply with the U-E Purpose: Division 4.2 Urban Estate District (U-E) Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low -density and large -lot housing... typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands. PSD was aware that this parcel was zoned U-E District when they purchased it. Although the future school and transportation facilities are permitted uses for this district, neither is related to the primary purpose. The ODP fails to be consistent with the land use code or our community at this fundamental level. The Public Facility in the ODP is actually composed of industrial uses that are inconsistent with the U-E Zoning District. "Public facilities shall mean transportation systems or facilities [... and other facilities listed]" This definition is an example of a very generally defined Permitted Land Use. It has been used to account for several of the service functions on the CDP. Transportation Facilities is described as anything from a sidewalk or bike lane to a mass transit facility. A transportation facility could be recreational, commercial or industrial in nature. Although it is a Permitted Use for U-E, it should not be considered a recommended use until it has been found to be consistent with the Land Use Code based on review of the P+Z Board. The transportation service functions identified in the ODP include: • transportation fleet maintenance • covered school bus parking • fleet fueling station These are industrial in nature. In section 2.d.3, Heavy industrial uses are described as follows: • uses engaged in storage of, or manufacturing processes using flammable or explosive materials, • or storage or manufacturing processes that potentially involved hazardous conditions. • Heavy industry shall also mean those uses engaged in the operation, parking and maintenance of vehicles, • cleaning of equipment or work processes involving solvents, • public works yards Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 13 This list is much more specific than the Public Facilities definition and more accurately describes the service functions and the inherent nature of the applicant's transportation facility. Other relevant Industrial Permitted uses that reveal the industrial nature of the applicant's facility are: • 2.b.5. Transit facilities with or without outdoor repair and storage. • 2.d.10. Outdoor storage facilities. The zoning by district matrix illustrates these points very well. Each district allows for Public Facilities and this is the basis for the applicant's rationale for ODP approval. This is in sharp contrast with Transportation facilities with repair and outdoor storage, which is permitted only in the employment and industrial zones. The heavy industrial uses I described are even more restrictive. They are permitted in the industrial zone only. Warehouses, which are being sought as an Addition of a Permitted Use, are only permitted in the commercial, employment and industrial zones. None of the industrial uses cited are permitted uses in the U-E District. The type, content and service functions of the proposed Public Transportation Facility are not consistent with the guidelines for the U-E District. Furthermore, the matrix makes a strong case that a facility of this nature is appropriate for placement in the Industrial district only. The "Heavy Industrial" better and more specifically describes the Transportation Facility on the ODP and "Transit Facility" uses in the Industrial Zone than in the more general list under Public Facilities. The Land Use Code, again, provides us with guidance in Section 1.4.9: A. Generally... Where any provision of the Land Use Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more stringent controls over the less stringent. To emphasize why industrial uses are incompatible with residential, the purpose statement of the Industrial District (1) says:... Industrial and manufacturing processes used in this District may, by necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. The Land Use Code indicates in numerous ways that industrial -based transportation facilities, both public and private are not appropriate in a U-E Zone. Addition of Permitted Uses: Referencing the Industrial Uses page of the Zoning Matrix for a second time reveals that Warehouses are a permitted use only in the Commercial (C), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Employment (E), and Industrial (1) Districts. 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Use (A) Required Findings... the Director or the Planning,and Zoning Board... may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other similar use, which conforms to all of the following conditions (the first 2 are listed): (1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added (2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added; They believe that the warehouse does not conform to conditions (1) and (2) of section 1.3.4 He'd like to make the point that the ODP is conceptual. There is nothing in the applicant's ODP that has any basis in reality at this point. If they do anything in terms of building out the actual ODP, it's probably going to be years so it's hard for them to imagine an addition of permitted use being added to something that is really just conceptual —you really need to tie it to something they're.ready to do it seems to them. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 14 He said he spoke for many community members in saying that we are concerned that the phased timeline presented by the applicant for build -out of the ODP, and a lack of current and uncertain future funding by both parties could result in a single 40,000 sq. ft. warehouse being placed on the property in question with the potential for future abandonment of the rest of the development. You'd have to imagine a warehouse in front of Mr. Cape's home with nothing around it for who knows how long. It would also establish a very unfortunate precedent by placing something that's industrial in a UE zone and then somebody could come back later and say —oh, there's a warehouse here, I think we should rezone all of this industry when the City Council of 1990 clearly said they meant for it to be low density residential. He asked the Board to carefully consider all the information. He asked the Board to avoid distraction by the details of the ODP and to see the trees from the forest. The applicant vision for the development of this property is evidenced by the CDP is fundamentally inconsistent with the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Cheri Nichols lives at 1601 Meadowaire Drive wanted to speak from her values and everything that she's learned through their involvement in this process over the last several months to conclude their presentation. They now have appreciation for how complex the issues are and yet they're simple in certain fundamental ways. They've come full circle from their initial reaction at the first neighborhood meeting in November. They have made exhaustive efforts to learn all points of view and how to effectively participate in this process. They've really appreciated the help and the discussion that they've received from Mr. Shepard, Mr. Holder, and all the other people they have consulted at the School District and at the City in the Planning Department. They have great appreciation and respect for everyone's tasks including both boards involved. They've come full circle and it still comes down to heavy industrial development of that nature has no place in any residential setting. Additionally, the surround infrastructure will not bear the burden. They have also learned that there are many foundational planning principles that address numerous issues and these provide guidance and direction for this decision. It really requires examining the Land Use compatibility conflicts that inherent in putting this development in a parcel that is surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhoods. They believe public facilities sometimes need to go in a specific place because of existing infrastructure or compelling geographic conditions. They may not always be a good fit for all surrounding landowners. They do not feel that this is.the case in this instance. The District has other choices. They have learned that just because a use may be permitted in a zone, it does not mean that approval is an automatic action. There is a decision to make. They are asking the Board to view this with a macro lens considering all the ramifications. They don't object to any development happening in their area, they simply hope and expect it to be compatible. There are many land uses that could fit, including a school —they're not industrial. The School District does not need to put this project here. This parcel is zoned UE, which they have learned can be problematic for planners but its primary purpose is residential. This parcel has long been understood to be transitional and rural and throughout the years, the zoning has maintained that understanding and respect for its surroundings. They are committed and established neighborhoods with roots there and they have made the biggest investment of their lives in their homes. They are asking the Board to uphold the intended and guiding principles of the Land Use Code and not recommend approval of the CDP or addition of permitted use. This would encourage the School District to explore other possible sites that are more compatible with surrounding development. She also had a petition that was signed the last couple of days by 51 residents of Homestead Estates Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 15 She wanted to thank the Board and the audience for letting them complete their presentation and also for considering their input. End of Public Input Board Questions: Chair Schmidt asked to see a copy of the letter dated December 19, 1990 from Mayor Susan Kirkpatrick to Barry & Cheryl Nichols. Chair Schmidt read into the record: "Dear Mr. & Mrs. Nichols, thank you for your recent letter to the City Council concerning the Galatia Annexation and Zoning Request. On Tuesday, December 18, 1990, all seven council members voted to annex the property into the City of Fort Collins. Council also voted to place 115.6 acres of the property into the RLP, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning District with the following three conditions: 1. Development shall be limited to single family homes only; 2. The overall gross density of residential development shall not exceed 1 unit per acre; and 3. All development must proceed as a planned unit development (PUD) and be reviewed against the criteria of the.City's Land Development Guidance System. Council believes the three zoning conditions will help guarantee that development on the Galatia property will be compatible with existing subdivision in the area and will enhance the area's overall quality of life. The PUD condition will also allow adjacent residents to be actively involved in the public review process as portions of the Galatia property develop in the future. Thank you for your letter and concerns. Susan Kirkpatrick, Mayor. Ms. Kirkpatrick also added a personal note that read: "Thank you for maintaining such a reasonable posture throughout this discussion. SK" .Member Lingle asked Eckman about the enforcement of the conditions at the time of the annexation of the Galatia in light of the 1997 rezoning. Eckman said in 1990 we had the Land Development Guidance System. Now we have Land Use Code and there are no longer PUDs—they're now called PDP (Project Development Plan) and Final Plans. The 1990 conditions were probably zoning conditions that were imposed on the zone at that time. We did a lot of conditional zoning before we adopted the Land Use Code (LUC). When we adopted the LUC in 1997, we tried to match the existing zone districts with the new zone districts and we went through a transformation —some of the zone district names changed. We eliminated, for the most part, zoning conditions so when the City Council rezoned this area the 1990 conditions went away as well. Now it would be reviewed under the LUC except for the fact that it's a school district project which will ultimately be reviewed under the statute. Legally those conditions, in his opinion, no longer apply. They are not legally binding upon the zone districts today. Eckman said that City Council in 1997 could not have changed a zone district if they were bound by what had been done in 1990. Chair Schmidt said that's probably why it was zoned UE because that is the most comparable zone. Member Stockover said if at the time of the letter, the school district elected not to participate in this type of process would they have been able to do the two-thirds vote? Eckman said he thinks the statute has been around for a very long time and he's 99% sure that the statute predates 1990. Shepard agreed. He said they've reviewed a number of elementary schools in the mid-80s and that was the statute that they used. Chair Schmidt asked when the school district purchased the property. Shepard said 1999. Chair Schmidt asked staff to speak to the storm water concerns. Holder said storm water will be addressed through the normal city process. They are currently proposing some detention south of the warehouse facility to handle the first phase. Ultimately, where "future school" is noted, they are planning a regional detention that would handle the drainage for the entire piece of property. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 16 Eckman noted that Colorado common law requires that there not be any change to create run-off that would damage down stream property. He said City Stormwater Engineers, under the character, location and extent review, do review storm water impacts and will report to the Board whether a proposed project will cause downstream flooding. Chair Schmidt had a question about the berms and landscaping —she was wondering why that would not occur until Phase 2. Holder said with the Phase 1 construction of the warehouse, they would create the partial berm to the south that would shield the warehouse. They would not install the berm on the north because they would like to continue to farm the rest of the property as they wait to develop. There are two wells on the north side that are currently being use to irrigate the property and there is a channel that runs along the north part that provides flood irrigation to the south side of the property. They would not want to destroy that infrastructure. Holder said there was a comment about the property being in the County. It is, in fact, in the City. Chair Schmidt asked Mr. Holder to speak to the Trilby project.. Holder said he could not really speak to the Trilby bus facility project; he was not with the District at the time that it was built. Shepard said the Trilby bus facility was a Site Plan Advisory Review. The Brittany Knolls neighborhood has a higher elevation looking down on the site. Shepard said with regard to Dennis Zierick's concerns regarding the road improvements along Trilby that's really a conundrum for the City's capital projects to develop a mile of roadway section between College and Lemay where there is county frontage that has not been annexed yet. Shepard went on to say there is a limited amount of capital money and the City needs to decide whether to allocate funds on the southern edge of the city where there is a lot of unincorporated area or allocate where the needs may be greater (such as widen Prospect and College or Drake & Taft). He said there's competition and not every project makes the cut. Over a period of time, they hope to catch up. Staff is very sympathetic to the issue but if we the road improvements on a per project basis, we'd have a "saw tooth effect " It would be far better to get capital project funding to do the whole area at once. Holder said the District will be making the improvements the Traffic Impact Study is recommending through the various phases. As Phase 1 is not required to completely develop Prospect Road along the south portion of the property nor are they required to replace the interchange -they certainly will not be doing those things. He said the City is not asking the District to do anything different than what they'd ask a developer to do nor is the District asking for any special privileges. Chair Schmidt asked Holder to outline what type of improvements would be occurring at the different phases —there was some concern about bridges on County Road 5. Holder said the bridges are not addressed within the Traffic Impact Study —they are outside of the area. City staff would be better prepared to address that question. Chair Schmidt asked when we get to the Site Advisory Review Plan, will there an additional traffic study or is the one submitted with the ODP the final version. Shepard said there would be an amended traffic study or an addendum that would account for any increase in background traffic or any changes that have occurred in planning from this analysis to when a Site Plan Advisory Review is submitted. Chair Schmidt asked when we get to Phase 2 and there have, not been any improvements made to the interchange and the traffic has gotten severely worse, would there be more opportunities to take County Road 5 versus staying on Prospect. Could the whole traffic scenario be amended and possible additional improvements required? Shepard said yes. Chair Schmidt asked if the District considered other sites for this facility. Holder said they had other vacant property such as the 100 acres Mountain Vista site behind the Budweiser plant. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 17 There is a 50 acre plot further south on County Road 5 closer to the Town of Timnath. They own 35 acres on County Road 1 on Wellington and a few other smaller sites. As they have evaluated those sites, the Mountain Vista really does make the most sense for a potential future high school. If the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan takes off as anticipated, they are expecting that area to grow like southeast Fort Collins has grown. They are also considering, besides the high school, a middle and elementary school on that site. The site near Timnath situates them perfectly for a potential middle school or a K-8 as Timnath starts to grow. This site sat well as they looked at the arterial connections and the deliveries coming up from Denver. They came back to this site as the primary focus for the warehouse facility. Chair Schmidt asked how the School District might deal with the following: neighbor's concerns, the warehouse built and functioning well; but due to the interchange needing improvements or capital funding issues, the transportation component (Phase 2) is not developed. Or, what if the Board denied Phase 2 use proposal because of the infrastructure problems? Holder said they can't predict that far into the future. He agreed that's a realistic scenario. He said the Town of Timnath could approve some things that happen out there that have impacts on Prospect Road that the Fort Collins Planning Board would not even see (or review). He couldn't really account for everything that could happen. If they came back in five years for Phase 2 and the TIS indicates the overpass has completely failed, that would be up to the Planning Board to deny. That would be the recommendation they'd take back to the Board of Education. No single entity can really afford the cost of improving the interchange —it falls under CDOT. Chair Schmidt asked Holder what fall back plan the District might have if that did happen five years from now. Holder said they'd continue at the Laporte site. Member Campana asked staff about the definition of public facility —he gets the public part but not the facility part. He asked what the intent is to help him have a better understanding. Shepard said the intent was there was likelihood there would be a need for public sector infrastructure (such as a water treatment plant, a waste water treatment plant, an electrical substation, or things that needed to be near a railroad track) to be located in certain geographic locations. An example they used at one of the neighborhood meetings was that Larimer County Jail. It could only be expanded where the jail is because of their particular needs for utilities and infrastructure. They have to be geographic specific and they might not match up with the zoning "that's on the ground." Shepard said so the term public facility was defined with that in mind and it was defined to be included in most zone districts in the event that something that served the public interest had to be in a certain location regardless of the zoning. Campana asked if staff believes this geographic location is essential for this use. Campana thinks we're stretching it a little bit. Shepard said that would be where you'd have to make that decision by asking the School District. We're going by the definition and what they're telling us they need to have in a certain location. Holder said again it goes back to available property —a portion of this property (albeit a small portion) is zoned industrial and our neighboring property is industrial. To the District it makes the most sense —when they look back and do the distribution of students and deliveries. Holder said at some point, those two zoning districts do come together. There's not a buffer between industrial and urban estate in this area. Holder said that adequate public facilities, as far as they are concerned, are the types of things they provide the District at large and they represent more communities than just the City of Fort Collins though a majority of their buildings are in Fort Collins. Holder said they are landlocked at the Laporte site. In 1960 when they built Poudre High School, they probably never imagined how big we were going to get and there. There is no place to grow. Holder said, and by the way they do abut urban estate in that location. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 18 Member Lingle said he was having the same problem as Campana with stretching. That's a pretty generous definition of public facilities to apply to this project. Lingle asked Shepard if the warehouse, as a use, is currently only being allowed in certain commercial and industrial zones. He said that would imply there's a certain level of intensity --incompatibility with other land uses that is inherent to that use. He's wondering if staff found it appropriate to be placed in this UE zone in this particular case based on the size of the parcel, the setbacks, and other things. Lingle asked how do you get by the underlying incompatibility part of a warehouse use in UE? Shepard summarized staffs thinking at the beginning of his question —they did look at the setbacks, they did look at the size in relationship to the acreage, and they did look at the relationship of the warehouse in terms of the houses in the subdivisions. There are opportunities to mitigate the impact. There are opportunities to build those berms. There are opportunities to design an attractive building. There are opportunities to recognize the fact that most of the traffic for this particular warehouse will be off peak. It isn't a heavy trip generator so getting a little below the surface of just what is a warehouse; staff looked this proposal and all the unique attributes and characteristics that go along with it. Shepard said as he mentioned earlier, they didn't consider this to be a text amendment to the Code or to be a use variance. Staff looked at it under the spirit of the addition of permitted use that allows them to pull in the compatibility criteria. He would agree that if you just looked at the "blanket" use and the "blanket" zoning, a warehouse in UE sounds incompatible but placed on 100 acres at 30,000 square feet with the architecture and landscaping that's proposed it starts to look compatible. Chair Schmidt said she can see some of that. The rest of it, however, she finds incompatible —especially when you look at land use transitions. She doesn't think there's enough transitioning. She said asShepard was saying, if it's this particular warehouse with this particular design and this acreage, you could mitigate impacts but what's planned to go around it as evidenced in the ODP does not mitigate impacts. Member Stockover said he thinks Campana said it best —we're starting to stretch quite a bit. He's always been a proponent of trying to make things work and he's heard many times that we can make anything fit anywhere if we spend enough time, effort and money. It is public money and that's a worthwhile effort. He truly feels that if a private developer brought this proposal in the Board would say no —you're trying to do too much at the expense of the surrounding areas. He's happy we have this before them today before they're gone too far down the road. If the Board approves the warehouse, then we're just "going to creep on out." It always gets harder to say no once it's started. But when he looks at everything there, he's overwhelmed, especially when you add Larimer County to the mix. There has to be a central located piece of property that would be less expensive and better suited for their needs. He suggested looking at Highway 14—it has great accessibility and is a little bit closer to town. At this point in time, he does not feel like he can support it. Member Smith asked Shepard if there were examples of other parcels in the UE zone district that have had the addition of a permitted use. If so, please elaborate. Shepard said the only example would be the small scale event center which was specifically designed to have a cap on acreage, setback requirements, and hours of operation. That was done as a text amendment so it's across all the UE zones —he said it's the closest analogy. Member Lingle said a concept he works with a lot in terms of land planning is what's considered the carrying capacity of the land. Have you done any type of an analysis in terms of what would be reasonable for this acreage to support in terms of intensity of use given the neighborhood and the surrounding context? Shepard said the short answer is no —they have not done that extensive of an analysis but they also said when they adopted City Plan that all zones are basically mixed use. There are a variety of land uses allowed in the UE. It's not a single use zone —it has other allowable uses. To Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 19 that extent, staff just relied on the zoning that was in place and the permitted uses stated in Article 4 to guide them. Member Campana thanked the surrounding neighborhoods for their effort. He's been at neighborhood meetings where he had projects where those in opposition had not taken the time to research what they are opposing. He appreciates the time they've taken to give public input. He also appreciates the time and effort the District has put into the project. He said it looks really good and he understands the need. However; he's not going to be able to support either request tonight. He doesn't think the intent of public facilities was to do this in UE. He lives in one of the UE zones and he wouldn't want something such as this in his back yard. He thinks the design could be modified perhaps to give better transition from the back yards of the neighbors to the north. He's been wresting with the request for a week and a half but he's decided he's not going to be able to support it. Member Lingle said he thinks the letter from Susan Kirkpatrick was a great piece of evidence in his deliberation because it shows a 20 year history of what the City of Fort Collins commitment to this neighborhood was even though city-wide all properties were rezoned in 1997. The fact that this property was placed in UE, which is their lowest density residential zoning district, shows a commitment to follow through on the promises that were made to the neighborhood in 1990. He thinks the entire thing is too intense, incompatible for this particular location, even with all the buffering in the world. He was never a firm believer of the LDGS philosophy that anything could go anywhere if you buffer it enough. When he looks at the master plan drawing, he thinks it very efficient and.a well laid out plan. The combination of multiple users that take advantage of the same kinds of needs and facilities is also great if it just wasn't surrounded by large acreage lots in residential subdivisions. If it were somewhere else, it would be fine. He agrees with Campana and Stockover that he would not be able to support either request. Chair Schmidt agrees with the statements that Member Lingle made. She really feels that when the land was rezoned in 1997, the fact that it went to UE was an additional commitment that it stay more large lot residential or something compatible with that. She doesn't think the intensity of this project is really compatible with the whole theme behind the UE zoning district --that's of particular concern. She applauds the District wanting to work with Larimer County. That's an excellent idea of combining those facilities and she really hopes that a place can be found that wouldreally work. Her concern is, given the funding limitations, the Prospect Road and 1-25 interchange is not going to be built out in time to see the benefits of having that type of facility there. She would encourage them to look for a place where in five years everything would be all set to go. She said this is going to be a really congested headache for a lot of people with this level of intensity. Member Smith said he won't be supporting it either. When additional permitted uses are requested, they have to be very clear —pass the "straight face" test (if you will) that the use is not that debatable. He's not sure that's the case here. That, in addition to the unresolved transportation issues, makes it difficult for him to support. Member Lingle moved to deny the request for the additional use of a warehouse in the Urban Estate Zone District acknowledging that the Poudre School District withdrew their request for an additional use of a professional office in the same zone district. The motion is based upon the fact that adding a warehouse to the UE zone is found to not comply with the compatibility standards of Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:0. Member Lingle asked Eckman assuming the motion was for the denial of the CDP, what type of findings do we need to have for that, if any? Eckman said you might include in your findings that the warehouse use has not been approved. Eckman further added this CDP could be conditionally approved for the Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 20 schools for the public facility or would that be a pointless effort if the warehouse can't be a component of it. Shepard said that would be a question for the applicant but staff has been told that the warehouse was identified as Phase 1_ and the other transportation related improvements were identified as Phase 2. The school was identified as Phase 3. Holder said the warehouse is one component —if the Board denies the warehouse and approves the remainder of the project, the phasing may change so please don't deny the ODP just based on the warehouse itself —consider it as an Overall Development Plan and the other uses they are proposing. Member Stockover said his feeling is the warehouse, in and of itself, could be made to work. He said it was the compounding of that (the extreme nature with everything that went with it) that causes him to pause. He doesn't think it'll change his opinion if the warehouse goes away. He still would be opposed to this project. Chair Schmidt agrees with Stockover. She could have been sold on the warehouse with other mitigation that would have made it more compatible with the surrounding areas but she felt like the additional uses of the public facilities made it less compatible versus more. Phase 2 of the ODP was almost more of a concern as far as the traffic issues and the compatibility than just the,warehouse. Eckman said the ODP would have to be evaluated against the Land Use Code criteria so if you're looking at permitted uses (as the schools are in that zone district), the Board would have to deny on some basis in the LUC as Shepard has outlined in his staff report. Member Campana said he thinks what the Board is saying, at least that what he's saying; is where staff has found it to meet the requirements of 3.5.1 (A) —Building and Project Compatibility and 3.5.1 (H) — Land Use Transitions; he does not. We'd just have to put that in the motion. Member Smith said that when he was talking about the unresolved transportation issues and the warehouse being a significant component in the ODP; he's wondering if the Traffic Impact Study needs to be updated based on the denial of permitted use. Director Dush said another option you have, since it seems like the review of the application was based upon item # 5—the request for the addition of permitted use and the concerns raised relative to transition and location, is (with the applicant's agreement) the idea to table the item for further review to address some of the Board's concerns. Holder said he's not sure about all the issues that are "out there" right now but he assumed by taking the warehouse "off the table" that would reduce the traffic impact the TIS has identified. On the issue of transition —he's unclear on that because part of the property is currently zoned industrial and the property directly to the west is zoned industrial. There is no transition between UE and Industrial other than this particular piece of property. He said there is technically not a transition between the UE and the Industrial zone. Chair Schmidt said, at least for herself, Jthat idea is on the particular design of the property. As Shepard mentioned, with the warehouse its 100 acres and there's a lot of mitigation you can do. But here we have the buses/transportation needs pretty close to the rural houses. Within the design of the public facilities to be placed on the property (even if it's a permitted use), there really isn't a transition to the neighboring uses. If we looked at someone who wanted to come with an industrial project, there would be a certain amount of expectation to what they would do within their zone as the got closer to the housing. Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 21 Holder said they are proposing an 80 foot buffer and they are approximately 1/8 of a mile away from their property to the nearest house by virtue of the back yards of Kitchell Estates. They are actually closer to the property south of Prospect. Member Campana said that normally when he looks at transitioning on a project (such as apartments adjacent to single family homes), he does one or two story buildings closest to the homes and transition up to three stories as you move away. He wouldn't take into consideration their back yard —that's their 375 feet. Perhaps he would put a building that is a little more transitional such as a small warehouse that could look like an outbuilding for UE. He said along those lines, you could transition to the fueling station and the bus depot. He understands they have Industrial to the west. He would expect the Industrial land to take into consideration what they're putting adjacent to that property line. Holder said there was some thought given to placing the buses there. Part of putting them closer to the buffer was to try to mitigate the sound issues. The farther away we get from the buffer, the more obvious the sound issues become so they did take a lot of that into account as they placed the individual "parts and pieces" on site. Member Stockover said the one thing that was really tipping him was the Larimer County portion. That is, in his opinion, the worst of the whole project. Holder said what's confusing this is the fact that they brought an illustrated drawing. Normally at the ODP level, the Board would not have seen an illustrated drawing. They thought it was important to show where they were going with this site. The Larimer County portion is still just discussion --they think it makes good sense. They would certainly encourage Larimer County to participate in the same process and bring specific development proposals. He cannot speak for them nor have they sold the property to them. Member Stockover said he totally understands that. He just still comes back to the fact that if a private developer brought this to them, the Board would say not in Urban Estate. You are trying to do too commercial oriented a development in a UE area. We have the Code and the guidelines so that when a property owner purchases a piece of property, they have some confidence in what is going to be coming in around you. He just feels that we're pushing that boundary way too hard. Holder said his understanding then is that you are not interpreting these uses to be public facilities. Stockover said that's correct— that's his personal view and it will reflect in his vote. Member Lingle moved to not approve the Poudre School District East Prospect Service Facility Overall Development Plan, # 44-08 based on the facts that the ODP does not comply with applicable standards of Section 3.5.1(A through H). Campana seconded the motion. Bruce Hendee, consultant for the District, would like to ask for a continuance. He also wanted to ask one thing —if you look at the ODP and you look at the permitted uses —the transportation access points shown —that's really all that the ODP is. So it's not approving the site specific plan. The recommendation for a warehouse was denied —understandable but the ODP itself only lists permitted uses that are currently listed in the Land Use Code with the exception, at the'very beginning of the land use classifications, there's a statement at the bottom left that specifically states the permitted uses. The ODP is actually very much in conformance with the LUC if you're not considering a site specific plan approval tonight. If you're inclined to vote against this tonight based on the site specific plan that you've seen, he would suggest the District ask for a continuance to another hearing date so they can clarify what the intent of the ODP is. Member Lingle said in response, there's been considerable discussion that they don't necessarily agree with the staff application of the definition of public facilities and some other things that are the basis of the Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 22 CDP so unless the continuance would address those things, it was fairly clear that we don't agree with that. Hendee said he understands and it's a good point to make so if you'd be turning this down based on that discussion, you 'd be rejecting something that are currently permitted uses in the LUC with the exception of staff's interpretation of what a public use is. Chair Schmidt said in a way that it's the idea -and that if they went to the character and the extent argument, there are all kinds of public facilities. The feeling is even if it's a permitted use, does that public facility being described here compatible and does it work in this particular UE parcel. She said to that extent, it's still an issue. Hendee asked staff to address what you're approving with an ODP. He said maybe we can get an interpretation of the character statement because he believes what they're asking for is approval of an CDP based on the drawing that is posted with the exception of the request for addition for permitted use Director Dush said the purpose of the CDP is to establish general planning and development controlling parameters for projects that are going to be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an CDP does not establish any vested rights to develop the property in accordance with the plan. Dush said there's no vesting with an ODP, it establishes a phasing plan and identifies the uses and as Hendee has indicated, the uses but for the addition of the permitted use (which was denied) are permitted uses in the UE zone district. Hendee said in the long run it may not help the applicant if the site specific plan review comes back through and those incompatibility issues are still there but he believes what they're approving with an CDP is exactly what Director Dush just said. Member Lingle said, as a technicality, the Plan they have in their packet is the illustrated plan. That was depicted at work session as the ODP---they don't have the plan that is currently on the overhead. Shepard said they referred to what was in the agenda packet as the illustrative plan and not the CDP. The ODP is the bubble diagram was submitted when the project was submitted and the fact that we didn't get it into the Board packet was an oversight. Member Lingle said the point, and we're not here to argue about it, is we've been reviewing the plan on a much more specific basis than the bubble diagram. Chair Schmidt said if they just look at the bubble diagram for the ODP but the next step could very well just be the Site Advisory Review Plan (which is much more limiting as far as to what the Board can comment on); she thinks the comments would be the same. She doesn't know exactly where Mr. Hendee is going with this because in a way it was good for the applicant to hear this discussion. Should it come back again, the discussion would probably be the same unless things were changed substantially. Hendee said he would like to point out is if another applicant came in and did not have a site specific plan to show you, he believes the review and discussion would be different. He said they've heard a lot of good comments tonight. The District can go back and review those comments; using them to revise the Site Advisory Review Plan. Member Campana said he believe Hendee brings up some good points. He said if the Board approves the ODP, he doesn't know exactly what they'd be approving. Would it be phasing? Would it be the Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 23 access points? Hendee said that if you have a project with more than one phase, you have to come in with an ODP. Hendee says they are asking them to approve access points and the overall plan. Director Dush said since the applicant's request for the addition of permitted use was denied, what's left are the two subsequent phases which are permitted uses. Campana could not see by the posted diagram where the next phases would be. Hendee said what they have shown is Parcels A-D--it's not noted as phases. Member Campana said that normally on an ODP, we'd see Phase 1 is .... Phase 2 is..., etc. Let's play this out (not suggesting you would do this); but if you phase out the parcel to the west in a different phase from the parcel to the east and you're putting public facilities according to staff's definition; that doesn't require P&Z approval (it's an administrative approval). You'd be going forward with that phase with an advisory and a staff review. Staff has seen the definition of public facilities differently than the Board... do you see how this plays out? Director Dush says the school does require Planning & Zoning Board approval —it is a Type II application. Campana said he's not hearing the Board is opposed to the school as much as they are to what's being classified as public facilities. The Board's ability to review will be gone. Hendee confirmed what he's hearing is if the Board should deny, it's really on staff's interpretation of what a public facility is. Campana said he can't approve that (plan on overhead) because he doesn't even know what he's approving --other than some arrows that indicate access points; he's certainly not approving any phasing-- he can't approve that plan. If he had a plan in his packet that they had been discussing for the past two hours, if it had phasing on it and access points and we discussed that we'd probably comment on it further but it's certainly not what we've been doing here. Chair Schmidt asked Eckman if an applicant can ask for a continuance. Eckman said you have a motion and a second. They have asked for a continuance but he thought it was under the purview of the Board to decide to continue or not. Member Smith said he thought it wouldn't be that bad to continue. Member Stockover asked if the ODP is denied; what is the applicant's ability to bring the project back. Chair Schmidt said they could come back with just a Site Advisory Plan. Shepard said they could resubmit a revised ODP. Director Dush summarized the options: they have the motion on the floor and you also have the ability to continue to address the concerns you've identified in your motion (Section 3.5.1 (A) through (H)). Eckman said procedurally if there is a motion to postpone to a date certain —those take precedence over the main motion and should be considered first Hendee said that after conferring with his client they have decided not to pursue a continuance Member Stockover said what he's hoping is that the Board is sending a message to the School District to please evaluate other options before proceeding with this. He said we aren't here to fight, we aren't here to be "no growth", and we aren't trying to be stubborn but he thinks there's enough at stake here that we are asking you to go back to the BOE and advise them on what their alternatives are. As the City develops, we loose opportunities. Stockover said that right now there are enough opportunities to do this type of development in what would be a more suitable area. Holder said they have evaluated all the applicable considerations. They have looked at their other pieces of property. It would be safe to say, if they were proposing the same facility at the Mountain Vista site, they might be having the same discussion with different neighbors. Nobody really wants this in their Planning & Zoning Board February 19, 2009 Page 24 back yard and they are running out of available property as they look around the developed areas. At this time, they believe this is the best use of the East Prospect property. Chair Schmidt said that Advance Planning staff has presented the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan to the Board at their work session. She was thinking later if the park and school swap, the park would be the buffer to the neighborhood. The new school land would be surrounded by Industrial/Employment — Anheuser Busch and you'd be right there by the interstate connection that could support this type of traffic. That is an option, she hopes they could pursue. She understands it would take some discussions with AB because they are donating land for the park. She said who's going to say what's going to develop first (Timnath or the north part of town). Holder said they felt they have followed the City process and addressed requests such as a Traffic Impact Study. They are proposing uses based on interpretations of staff. He's not sure what else they could have done differently than to submit what was proposed. He appreciates the opportunity to review the proposal with the Board and thanked them for their input —they'll take it into consideration. The motion approved 5:0. Chair Schmidt said the Board's concern was basically the intensity of what's being proposed. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Current Planning Director Schmidt, Chair