Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/16/2003 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2003, AMENDING AGENDA 1TEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 14 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 16, 2003FROM Bob Barkeen SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2003, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Vineyard Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinance on First Reading. On August 21, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the rezoning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to rezone a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and I-25. This parcel is 78.6 acres in size and is currently zoned I—Industrial. The proposed rezoning would rezone the eastern 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to Urban Estate residential,the remaining 34.8 acres of land adjacent to I-25 would remain zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the 1-25 Special Corridor Study on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and Urban Estate on the recently adopted 1-25 Subarea Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with the recently adopted I-25 Subarea Plan. This plan designates the land 1/4 mile east of 1-25, north of Vine Drive, as Urban Estate Residential. The Urban Estate zone district permits up to two residential units/acre. The purpose of the I-25 Subarea Plan is to provide a mix of housing and employment uses along I-25, and provide a transition of density and land use intensity from the area directly adjacent to I-25 to the rural character outside of the City's Urban Growth Area in Latimer County. FINDINGS and ANALYSIS 1. Background: A. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I; Undeveloped S: I/FA1 (County); Undeveloped/Agriculture E: FAI(County); Undeveloped/Agriculture W: I; Undeveloped The property was annexed as part of the Front Range Farms II Annexation in January, 1988. ep em er 15, l DATE: v ITEM NUMBER: r 2. Ouasi-Judicial Rezoning: The properties included within the rezoning petition are less than 640 acres, and is therefore, considered a Quasi-Judicial Rezoning. In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of a rezoning to the City Council, the following criteria shall be met: A. Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan: The requested UE zoning is consistent with the recently adopted I-25 Subarea plan. This plan is adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The plan designates this parcel as Urban Estate Residential. The Urban Estate Zone District permits residential up to two-units/acre. and/or B. Warranted by change in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property: The area south of this site will be developing into low-density residential at approximately 1.8 units/acre. This parcel is in the process of being annexed and zoned Urban Estate. The Structure Plan designation for this project is Urban Estate. The proposed rezoning is much more compatible with the type of development than the existing Industrial designation. The rural densities east of the site within Latimer County are anticipated to remain, or, possibly develop within the density permitted under the FA-I zone district in Larimer County,which is currently one unit/2.3 acres. C. Additional Consideration for Ouasi-Judicial Rezonings: In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed zoning amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: 1. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surroundingthe subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land: The area east of I-25 has a rural character and density. Much of the land is used for farming. The Urban Estate provides one of the lowest maximum densities of the City zone districts, a maximum of two units/acre. The land to the east of the site is zoned FAI in Latimer County, which would permit a residential density less than that of Urban Estate. The proposed UE zoning will provide greater compatibility with the area than the existing Industrial zoning. 2. 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, noise, air, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. 14 DATE: p e er ITEM NUMBER: The parcels are not included within a mapped natural habitat area,nor does it appear they contain any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas which would be impacted by future development of the site. The I-25 corridor plan does not envision any open space along this portion of the corridor. The site is adjacent to the Boxelder Creek floodplain, which may warrant future study when a project development plan is proposed. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The Urban Estate zone district will provide a transition from higher intensity industrial land to the west and the existing rural land use east of the site in Larimer County. This zoning will provide a feathering of densities outward from the higher intense uses internal to Fort Collins to the rural land outside of the urban growth area. 3. Request for UE—Urban Estate District Zoning The applicant initially filed a rezoning petition with the City on January 8, 2003. The current request is to rezone 43.8 acres acres from I to UE. The property is undeveloped. The purpose of the UE Zoning is to provide a"setting for a predominance of low-density and large- lot housing. The main purpose of the district are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands. 4. Neighborhood Response: The Current Planning Department has received several letters from adjacent businesses concerned over the rezoning from I- Industrial to UE — Urban Estate Residential. These letters have been attached to this report. They are concerned that future residential will have children which may be drawn to these properties which use heavy equipment and semi-truck as part of their daily operations, thus creating a safety hazard. These neighbors also state compatibility issues from permitting single family residential adjacent to established industrial uses which generate noise during the early morning hours and throughout the day. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Vineyard rezoning, File#2-03, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained above: 1. The subject property for the Vineyard Rezoning is designated on the I-25 Subarea Plan, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as Urban Estate Residential. 2. The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the visions, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. 3. The rezoning request is consistent with the existing land use established within the area, particularly outside of the Urban Growth Management Area. ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE VINEYARD REZONING WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that the said property should be rezoned as hereafter provided; and WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from "I", Industrial Zone District, to "UE", Urban Estate Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Vineyard Rezoning: ALL THAT PART OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2000027092 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS THAT IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ATTHE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AT BOOK 1838 AT PAGE 938 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY,COLORADO,RECORDS AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL TO BEAR NORTH 47'52' 00" WEST WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE NORTH 47`52' 00"WEST ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 470.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 61'53' 30"EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 442.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE AFORESAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2000027092; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID DESCRIBED TRACT THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES: 1. THENCE NORTH 00*05' 34"WEST A DISTANCE OF 158.83 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 89°32' 23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1040.00 FEET; 3. THENCE NORTH 00` 05' 34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 879.00 FEET; 4. THENCE NORTH 67" 41' 06" WET A DISTANCE OF 1050.00 FEET; 5. THENCE NORTH 63° 36' 06"WEST A DISTANCE OF 495.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 89006985 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 1. THENCE SOUTH 00° 21" 00" WEST A DISTANCE OF 868.97 FEET; 2. THENCE NORTH 89' 39' 00" WEST A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 29' 19" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1300.10 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID TRACT DESCRIBED INDEED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2000027092;THENCE SOUTH 89° 32' 23"EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH TRACT LINE A DISTANCE OF 421.22 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 43.87 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of September, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of October, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 7th day of October, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk E t � m I ' m z D m ® Di ® m Ol N L ff � I -DR I Cou - z z D3 Q z D m 6 � I '2-03 The Vineyard Rezonir ,- 3/7/03 N Type II (LUC) 1 inch : 600 feet 111►111:IIIV I:i►/11/IUV 1►1 � s /� 1. - 1 \ . 1 ►. . .. Rezoning Parcel \\ Neighborhood Categories Larimer County(Outside GMA) Low Density Mixed-Use Residential Industrial District .. .. SpecialCorridor a _ 1 11111► III � � +�y, �yy� �,= 11T� � 111•� � ,T � _ ry, � �� 1111 IIIIIIII►� ,, , i a 1 11 Fort Collins • ' Draft Land Use Plan ci- 1 ti Ilk� wac+ nos. _ w w Caren MCleeaea.aaaal eeea Q � COrgmmmertruen _�• y . ® rdMentaenn r2 OiOureropuelenppa - ® ® uor�llaalw. _ wa+c.aaaa meal t�>•. _ [ ,,J.d :� �,-� .�_® ® arcane lne.+ws o.aoer eceew aeroe e•.: � >ep.rr sawsrr lulu env�eueaau.nwacowe � � -. �. •-- WESTERN HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Rezoning Petition — Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 4 March 5, 2003 OVERVIEW This parcel of land that is being submitted for rezoning from I (Industrial) to UE (Urban estates) has been submitted for conceptual review at least two other times by Western Heritage Property Development, Inc., in recent years. No definite direction was afforded past submittals, in part due to the lack of a time frame for completing and adopting the 1-25 Corridor Plan and the Subarea Plan for this area. A large amount of work has been done by staff and various consultants, as well as having numerous public hearings and City Council work sessions. Summarizing the strategic direction for open space, flood control, employment and shopping corridors, as well as an area for residential use, although it may not be complete, can be more cohesively planned at this time. The current conclusion of these studies should provide enough direction for rezoning this parcel of land to best comply with future directions and city planning. JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST 1. Property Description This is a piece of property that adjoins 1-25 feeder road on the NE corner of E. Vine and 1-25. It is approximately 43.87 acres in size, with approximately 421 feet of frontage on E. Vine. An approximate 36.13-acre "I" zone tract lies directly west of the proposed "UE" zone is also owned by the Petitioner, and is in what is called a "no rise zone/ 100-year flood boundary of Boxelder Creek" along 1-25. The property is presently serviceable by East Larimer County Water District and Boxelder Sanitation District for water and sewer, and Light and Power for electricity. The east side of the property adjoins Boxelder Creek where a 100-building setback is required. Two personal residences also adjoin the property to the east. To the south, E. Vine should be the future access for this property and this residential community. Other properties to the south include a city parcel zoned I (Industrial), as well as a county parcel east of that that is owned by Wilber Lebsack and is being RezoningPetition Ex ftcollins WESTERN HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Rezoning Petition — Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 4 March 5, 2003 developed as a residential community with an approximate density of 2 houses per acre. To the north the property is zoned I (Industrial) and is being used commercially. To the west would be 1-25, and just west of that is a fairly large residential community developed by Richmond Homes with a PUD density. Along with residential and I-Industrial zoning plans for the surrounding properties, other commercial improvements for the area should include widening E. Vine to 4-lane arterial on the west side of 1-25, as well as improving Vine to east side of 1-25 to 2-lane arterial status, and possibly improving the I-25Nine interchange. The Anheuser Busch processing plant is 2 miles away. BACKGROUND Two recent submittals on the property for conceptual review were reviewed on June 30, 1997 and October 29, 2001. In 1997, the current Planning Department stated that the property was currently in the 1-25 Corridor Study and that the land use requirement from that study will affect the land use for this project. In 2001 another set of comments included new requirements for this parcel in light of an ongoing subarea study, the 1-25 Corridor Study, and the Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough floodplain studies, also. Some of the findings and land use recommendations applicable to this site would be to: 1. build on the results of the 1-25 corridor Plan; 2. integrate open space into a network of watercourses, 3. support areas around the Anheuser Busch facility with neighborhoods and other commercial facilities, 4. protect river and stream corridors and their riparian boundaries, 5. storm drainage area and detention ponds should be designed to create permanent habitat area with native vegetation 6. development of residential lots should be '/< mile from 1-25, Ft.mngPetinon_Ex Mcdins WESTERN HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Rezoning Petition — Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 4 March 5, 2003 7. the zoning and properties along 1-25 should show a transitional nature from commercial to residential. Because there is no longer an adoption date for the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the date has been extended from the Spring of 2001 to as much as five years hence as well as being amalgamated into a future City Plan, it is the applicant's desire to submit a rezoning plan that will best include the planning done by 1-25 Corridor Plan and the conceptual ideal that the zoning along 1-25 should include design criteria that includes the appearances, use, floodplain issues and compatibility issues designated by same. Because studies of the new results of the floodplain studies in the area, and because adjoining properties are in a large part residential in nature, the applicant believes it is best served by all to have a combination of industrial open space/no-build areas and residential areas for this parcel. This would both accommodate drainage problems and alleviate the unsightly possibility of such a large industrial tract with nothing but storage bins at the northern gateway to the City. JUSTIFICATION FOR UE (URBAN ESTATE) ZONING Zoning this property as UE instead of I (Industrial) is in better compliance with City and area regional requirements. Along with rezoning the property, an open space, no-build tract is proposed for the area. This will be used to best accommodate open space requirement along the highway corridor as well as possible drainage requirements due to flooding along the 100-year flood area along 1-25. Justifications include: 1. Having too large an I-Industrial tract near the highway will most likely have a detrimental visual impact on the northern gate to the City. An I-Industrial tract of this size, unless it is used for commercial office building, usually ends up bearing tractors and other storage facilities on them with time. The proposed plan is to have a manageably-sized tract bordering 1-25. 2. Abutting developments are being built as residential communities to the west and the south presently. These communities are a visual statement that the transitional zoning away from 1-25 is a good solution to many issues addressed by various regional and subarea studies. 3. By better mixing uses, the residential community proposal will best support higher density of employment in the surrounding areas. 4. The property is within 2 miles of high shopping centers along Mulberry. Re ontn9Reliticn EMR collins WESTERN HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Rezoning Petition — Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 4 March 5, 2003 5. The 1-25 access will afford easy access for travel, as well as concentrating traffic near residential and employment areas. 6. The property is supported by nearby utilities and proposed utilities. 7. Urban Estate zoning is the lowest density residential district in the Land Use Code, and will provide for the desired transition from other zoning to Industrial zoning. 8. Along with the open space/no-build easement as a possibility to the west, cluster building can also accommodate the eastern portion for this Urban Estate re- zoning. Ae wingPefitiw_Ex flcollins ia CityoEFoctCollins CITY OF FORT COLLINS REZONING PETITION Petitioner: Norm Karasa 724-C South Tejon Street Name Address Colorado Springs, CO 80903 City, State, Zip Name Address City, State, Zip Owner: Western Heritage Property Development 724-C South Tejon Street Name Address Colorado Springs, CO 80903 City, State, Zip Name Address City, State, Zip To the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. I (We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition and request that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by changing the zoning of the hereinafter described parcel, containing 53.92 acres, more or less, from 1 zoning district to UE zoning district: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION HERE] WESTERN HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. City of Fort Collins — Rezoning Petition LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of Tract "A", FRONT RANGE FARMS EXEMPTION, as recorded in Reception No. 214247, public records of Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southwest %of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principle Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, as being S 89032'23" E as defined by a 2 '/2" aluminum cap stamped with LS 25372 of the Southwest Corner of said Section 3 and 2" aluminum cap stamped with LS 25372 at the South % corner of said Section 3. . Commence at the Southwest corner of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principle Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado; thence S 89"32'23" E along the South line of the Southwest '/< of said Section 3 for a distance of 609.10 feet to a corner of Tract "A", FRONT RANGE FARMS EXEMPTION, as recorded in Reception No. 214247, public records of Larimer County, Colorado; thence continue S 89032'23" E along said South of the Southwest''%and the South line of said Tract "A" for a distance of 519.50 feet to the Southeast corner of said Tract "A" to the POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continue S 89°32'23" E along said South of the Southwest ''/<and the South line of said Tract "A" for a distance of 424.20 feet to the Southeast corner of said Tract "A"; thence run along the Easterly line of said Tract "A" the following courses and distances: thence leaving said South of the Southwest''%run N 47°52'00"W for a distance of 470.00 feet; thence run N 61°53'30: E for a distance of 442.37 feet; thence run N 00'05'34: W for a distance of 158.83 feet; thence run S 89°32'23" E for a distance of 1037.70 feet; thence run N 00'05'34: W for a distance of 878.98 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "A'; thence run along the Northerly line of said Tract"A" the following courses and distances: thence run N 67°41'06" W for a distance of 1050.00 feet; thence run N 63°36'06" W for a distance of 495.00 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line run S 00021'00" W for a distance of 869.41 feet; thence run N 89°39'00" W for a distance of 699.97 feet; thence run S 00°21'00"E for a distance of 500.00 feet to the aforesaid Northerly line of Tract "A"; thence S 52°30'00" E for a distance of 758.5 feet; thence S 00°00'00" E for a distance of 344.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 58.92 acres (2,566,555.20) square feet more or less. Reason for Request: (Please attach additional sheets if more space is needed) SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Please attach listing of names and addresses of all persons owning land (as per Larimer County Assessor's office on date of request) within 500 feet of any portion of the area under petition for rezoning. Respectfully submitted, State of Colorado ) ) ss. County of Larimer ) The forgoing instrument was acknowledge before me this d*TH day of January 2 003 , BY M HA for the purpose therein set forth. gUEUry� My commissio e si+'e's "'A Q NOTARY � _ PUBLIC r fP�✓ P� otary lic Please return to the City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department. 00 6L8 / M :K.S0,00 N a / y 1 W C 00 � / y .G W oy0. off/ L -- M N O p N O / O M 1 o j /7 G Gc1 � LC 89L oo � � % M�6£.90,00 N ^ " � ��n Na O 3£ � ,6 AO O` W 2 b1 M ry M.00JZ,00 S rn Q -- m L6 898 8 _ � -M,66.6Z 005 0600£l z _ Z W Z M m N N 0 m N m M F o w z d O ' f O a WCD z N N W '6 Nm '6 m m U TF� C 0 - V1 U O — V] peoy osuluolA -- SZ— [ a � eis � aluI — — Fort Collins 1020 NE FRONTAGE ROAD, FORT COLLINS CO 80524 Feed August 12, 2003 Dear Mr. Bob Berkeen, This letter is concerning the Vineyard Rezone- type II (LUC) - File #2-03. When we were looking at property for our business in 1987 we had 85 people sign a petition against the sites we had proposed to purchase because we would be endangering eighty two species of wildlife, cause danger to children, cats, dogs and livestock. The residents also complained there would be more dust, noise and traffic. We purchased an industrial site for those reason stated above. Also, The Planing and Zoning board said they would not bother us anymore. Now you want to put a residential area right next door. Now we are the ones concerned for the welfare and well being of the residents that would be in that area if it were approved as an urban estate. The safety of the children and young adults that might be intrigued by the 18 wheelers and the noises that occur would be of great concern. We would not want the children to come on our property and be injured or worse because of their curiosity. We also have a serious issue with the children and the irrigation ditch which would be located directly behind this urban area. Children are always interested in water and the danger is greater for drowning in a ditch like this as it is running faster than it looks and is very deep and hard to get out of. This becomes an issue of, are the children protected from this area, and the liability of who would be responsible as both properties own part of this ditch. The other reason we are concerned about an urban area going in is we are considered industrial and we run trucks 7 days a week 24 hours a day. Although the trucks are not loud it is our policy to let the trucks run to build up air pressure for the brakes. This, to some people may be annoying, but it is necessary for our employees safety. We also have safety checks for the trucks which involve backing the truck up and making sure alarms, which are very noisy, are working properly. It is also a policy of ours to honk the horn to let anyone in the parking area know the truck is about to be moved. This is also for our employees safety, but maybe annoying to residents. Another concern is the flooding hazards and the drainage problems that may exist in this basin. The stormwater master planing and revision of the foodplain regulations is not yet set for the Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough area. Would the changes effect this area and what would it do to the homes in that urban estate? RECEIVED I I I� All z • »03 CURRENT PLANNING In 1987 the issue of displacing animals from their habitat and endangering them was a major concern of the zoning and planning board. Has this changed? What will happen to the animals that inhabit this area now? Will you relocate them or will they be left to find new homes closer to our trucks or the county road that passes this area and be endangered by more traffic. There is also the problem of more theft and vandalism when urban areas are intermingled with industrial areas. This causes our business more money in surveillance and security which could become a burden financially. Or will the city provide this service to accommodate a new urban area? We would rather have this property stay industrial for the safety of the children and the sanity of all adults concerned. Sincerely, GU -ozCcti'< Ste en . Woodward General Manager A.L. Gilbert Co. dba Fort Collins Feed Planning . Zoning � . Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mika[ Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Carpenter, Colton Craig, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Barkeen, Mapes and Dodge. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the February 6, (Continued) and February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. #9-03 Halcyon Second Annexation and Zoning. 3. #8-99B Willow Brook, Third Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 4. #2-03 Vineyard Rezoning Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 2 and 3. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Vineyard Rezoning, #2-03 Project Description: Request to rezone a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25. The parcel is 78.6 acres in size and is currently zoned 1, Industrial. The proposed rezoning would rezone the eastern 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to Urban Estate residential, the remaining 34.8 acres of land adjacent to 1-25 would remain zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the 1-25 Special Corridor Study on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. Norm Karasa, Owner and Applicant of the rezoning request spoke to the Board. He stated that he did not bring any more information than what Planner Barkeen had already presented. As part of his submittal it was pretty clear as to the intent of this application. This piece of property had been submitted on two prior submittals for consideration of being rezoned to residential of one form or the other. It has taken more than two years to get a cohesive plan as to what would be in the best interest for the State of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins as to the nature of the zoning as they foresee it in the future on the 1-25 Corridor. Public Input Steve Woodward, Fort Collins Feed, 1020 Northeast Frontage road gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that they own the property to the west of this property. Back in 1987 they tried to start a business; they handle all the spent grain for the Budweiser Brewery. They tried to purchase 127 acres just two miles east of the Brewery. At that time they had 85 people complain and their complaint was that they were going to endanger 85 species of wildlife and livestock. They then went off of Highway 14 on Butcherblock right off of County Line Road and were going to purchase 863 acres. They had 36 people fight them on that. On the 127 acres they asked for 5 acres to be Industrial and the other 122 acres to be greenland and that was denied. On the 863 acres, 63 acres were already a feedlot and that was also denied. On the requested rezoning there is a lot less green area. Here there are 44 acres with 20 or 30 houses on it and a lot less green area. The Planning and Zoning Board and the people in the industry said that if they would go to an Industrial area, they would not bother them again. Their concern is for the children and the young adults in the area. They are concerned that they are going to be overrun with 18-wheelers all the time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They are also concerned about the problems with theft; they have already had some vandalism and theft with the people in Waterglen. They run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When starting the trucks they have to run from 5 to 7 minutes to warm up. The drivers also have to back up and they blow their horn when they back up and they use a backup horn. When they start forward, they have to blow their horn again for safety reasons. He knows that if horns are blown at 2:00 a.m. people will complain. They are a 24f7 operation and they run all the time. They have no choice. For those reasons, they are against the proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 3 Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked Planner Barkeen to address compatibility and how that was addressed in the rezoning process. Planner Barkeen replied that the issue of compatibility would take a two step process. We have to look at whether the Urban Estate is truly compatible with the adjacent I, Industrial land. Normally you see a transition of land uses for zoning classifications between Industrial land and residential uses. The other way to address this is through the design process. When an actual Project Development plan is submitted, looking at actual buffers, distances, separation requirements and things of that nature. Our Land Use Code does not really have a lot of guidance when it comes to residential going into Industrial areas. There is a lot of guidance when industrial goes into residential areas as far as setbacks and separation requirements, landscaping and location of buildings. It will be something that will definitely have to be looked at in the Project Development Plan stage to make sure that these uses can be made compatible. Deputy City Attorney Eckman cited what was in the Code. He stated that the i Board was being asked to look at a Structure Plan Amendment and in the process of deciding whether a Structure Plan Amendment is appropriate, it is a legislative decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He thought that the Structure Plan Map amendments should not be at dissonance with the Principles and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan or the Visions and Goals. If the Structure Plan Amendment is approved, in rezonings, any proposed rezoning needs to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan or warranted by changed conditions. If the Board approves the Structure Plan amendment it might follow that the rezoning would be appropriate as well because it would be consistent with the Structure Plan Map. There are also other considerations that the Board may examine in a rezoning. The Land Use Code says "in determining whether to recommend approval of any proposed amendment, being an amendment to the zoning map, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: • Whether and the extent of which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land. • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 4 • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern." These items are optional and may be considered by the Board. The things the Board has to consider is whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or warranted by changed conditions. Member Craig felt it was interesting that on this piece the underlying zoning has been Industrial all along. It was not like they were taking a blank piece of land or a piece of land that was zoned Rural Open Lands. It has been Industrial for years and she would like the Board to take that into consideration even when looking at the Structure Map. To her that was important especially for people like Mr. Bath that moved out there thinking all was right with the world because it was zoned Industrial. Member Craig asked if Planner Barkeen went out and observed the 2417 business that went on as far as the trucks. Planner Barkeen replied he had not been out there at odd hours of the day to see what is truly going on out there. Just through site visits and site shots has been s the only times he has been out there to observe some of the existing Industrial uses out there. Member Craig was concerned about taking 44 acres of Industrial land with good based jobs and turn it into residential. It is a concern right now to try and keep land that we can get base jobs in that give us a wage that people can afford to live in Fort Collins. In the market analysis that was done for the City Plan Update it states that "between 2015 and 2020 the supply of available land to accommodate Industrial and Employment growth will be exhausted". She wondered if staff has the same concern and one we should be looking at before we just start rezoning and getting rid of land that we should be looking at as employment. Clark Mapes, City Planner replied that before he makes any judgements about whether we should or how we should use it, he can tell the Board that the citywide totals that she is referring to is the market analysis for the City Plan Update. This was not done when the discussions and the process of the Subarea Plan were taking place, which led staff to the point where we are supporting this proposal tonight. Citywide totals of the jobs/housing balance are not the reason why the Subarea Plan process and those discussions led to support this change to housing. The idea of including housing in development in this area came up in the discussion originally to balance Industrial and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 5 Employment uses out here with housing, so the area did not develop as a large, single use employment, industrial and office destination. There has been a lot of talk about the balance of jobs and housing, not so much citywide, but in this area. That approach to the development of this area fizzled out. There was no support from Council or from the public for full-fledged city development out here. Council did however, support the idea of the Urban Estate housing out here as a compromise between ideas for open lands, which was some of the other alternatives for the future out there. There were ideas for full-fledged city development. Both of those had their problems and he sees this as a compromise. It is a lower level of development and a transition to the County. Providing this large lot housing provides a low density housing that some say the city also has a shortage of. Those are more of the reasons that this idea has gotten this far. It was not citywide jobs and housing balance. In addressing the market analysis prediction that land for this type of use, office and industrial will expire in 2015 to 2020. It points out that land for housing will likewise be exhausted in 2020 to 2025. At some point, we have talked about not expanding the city and even if we were there would be a limit as to how far you could expand it. Member Craig wondered if the Anheuser Busch property were to be taken out of the inventory, because we don't know if it will ever be used, would we even have enough land to last from 2015 to 2020. Planner Mapes replied that all the land was added in when the analysis was done. He stated that the shortage we have now and would get worse is the shortage of moderately sized and priced parcels as opposed to the multi-hundred acres that Anheuser Busch owns. Member Craig stated that from a land use issue, this does concern her. People like Mr. Bath who is bringing them jobs that are higher than retail jobs and if we don't appreciate his position and don't give him Industrial land that he can be and expand on, then we are pushing him down the road. Director Gloss wanted to add to Planner Mapes comments. He believed the study that was done for the City Plan update quite sometime ago now, did not include the CSU foothills campus at least to the extent that we now know is the overall plan from CSU. That could play into the Boards decision. Another item that has been talked a lot about the exhausting of the Industrial and Employment land by the year 2020, is there is also a similar finding about residential land. The residential expired about the same time. We are looking at a relatively good Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 6 ratio of close to 1:1 of jobs to housing. We are exhausting the supplies at the same time. That begs the question is there a problem with that? Member Craig agreed and that is why she brought up the Anheuser Busch land and if we take that out of the formula, is our job/housing ratio still as close as it shows right now. That is her concern. Member Carpenter found it ironic that they were talking about loss of employment land and at the same time we will be running out of residential land. At some point we will be saying that we are out of everything. She thought that was a much bigger question that has to do with the expansion of the GMA, whether or not we are going to add any kind of land. She was having a hard time applying that to this particular piece, just simply because we appear to running along to the edge of the cliff. She has a problem with looking at running out of employment land, when we are going to ignore if we are running out of residential land. Member Gavaldon agreed with Member Carpenter. He stated that we are in the middle of the City Plan update and he would like that to run its course. He would like the Board to stay focused to the Structure Map and to this rezoning request. Member Colton asked to see any pictures that Planner Barkeen may have of this existing trucking use and how close was it is to this parcel. Planner Barkeen visually showed the Board where the Fort Collins Feed Company was located next to this parcel. Member Colton asked Mr. Woodward how many trucks they ran out on a daily basis. Mr. Woodward replied they have 9 trucks and they would be adding 3 more. Right now they do 22 loads a day out of the Brewery. The trucks are in and out at least twice. Come December 1, they would be doing 32 loads a day out of the Brewery. It just depends on what the Brewery does. He has a day shift and an afternoon shift. The more the Brewery does the more they do. Mr. Woodward also added that they have a very large ditch on their property and they were also concerned with children jumping in the ditch and lawsuits that would come of that. Member Carpenter asked what was to the east of the parcel we are talking about. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 7 Planner Barkeen replied that it is in Larimer County and not in the city of Fort Collins. It is mainly agriculture uses, it is very rural. It is all zoned FA-1 in Larimer County. If someone would develop that property, to maximize the density in residential, it would be 1 unit per 2.3 acres. It is lower than what is permitted in the Urban Estate zone district. Member Carpenter was confused about the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report and that it talks about this being consistent with the existing land uses within the area. Planner Barkeen pointed out that there is an existing project to the south of this project called Streamside Development plan within Larimer County. We are in the process of annexing that into the city. There was just completed a Structure Plan Amendment done there to allow them to go to Urban Estate. We are seeing some redevelopment in this area that is consistent with what we are seeing in the rezoning request. Chairperson Torgerson stated that in a lot of cases around Industrial as a buffer we would see MMN and those kinds of uses as opposed to Urban Estate. He i was wondering how Urban Estate really fits as a buffer against Industrial given the type of product that they build. Planner Barkeen replied that there was a pretty narrow area upon which to do all these transitions from. Obviously the key is Interstate 25 and that you don't want to have residential up against 1-25. The existing Industrial, staff thinks, works very well for that. To the east is the GMA and we have agreed not to annex beyond that. With the existing County zoning remaining at FA-1, we have not heard anything from Larimer County saying that they would be upzoning anytime soon. There is not a lot of land to work with as far as providing nice smooth transition. Chairperson Torgerson asked if we left this as Industrial, there is a leapfrog development out there. A half to a mile away, there is Urban Estate type development. He was wondering about the rational of creating Urban Estate to buffer the Industrial because it seems like there is an Urban Estate pattern growing in the County towards us anyway. It may be logical to maintain that Industrial zoning and allow the County to grow at us. Planner Barkeen thought that we were missing input from a third party and that would be Larimer County. He thought that they did not have any plans to upzone and thought that they would still allow some of those Urban Estate type of developments to occur in this area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 8 Member Craig asked if there were any residential to the east between this and the ditch. Planner Barkeen showed an aerial photo of the area and pointed out the residential areas and where the Streamside and Peterson annexation areas were located. Member Craig said that Planner Barkeen has stated in his presentation earlier that we had a lot of criteria for new Industrial that comes in next to residential, but we don't have very much for residential coming in against Industrial. If we expanded the Industrial, then that gives staff the opportunity make that buffer instead of us abruptly coming up against Mr. Woodward's business. Member Colton asked about the two annexations that had been done within the last month or so. That was done with Industrial right up next to Urban Estate and the Board did not raise issue at that point in time. He did not see what was different here other than there are some existing development. Planner Barkeen stated that the Streamside and Pederson annexations were zoned Urban Estate and he visually showed the Board their locations just south of Vine Drive. Member Colton stated that outside of some of the compatibility issues, this would be consistent with some of the direction he has heard from Council. Member Craig thought that the difference is that it could be controlled. If it is not there then that is when we could say this is Industrial and you are going to be up against Urban Estate, this is what is expected of you. Mr. Woodward came in with the anticipation that it would be Industrial and has put together a business that is very Industrial and wants to expand his Industrial business, and we are going to put in Urban Estate next to him and we don't have the criteria to protect his business. That is what concerns her when we get down to compatibility. Member Colton asked the applicant what he had in mind with Urban Estate there and if he thinks it is saleable to people knowing that there is going to be a trucking facility next to it. Mr. Karasa replied that it was an interesting idea to just consider it. He thought that there was proximity to the highway, to shopping areas. There are numerous reasons to put Urban Estate here. There could be clustering and still maintain the open space and the beauty and separate it from the highway. You just pull the housing back a little bit from the Industrial land and make it green. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 9 thought that it was amenable to the area and a natural transgression from the highway and light industrial area all the way to the urban area of the County. Member Meyer's concern was that this would be just like people who buy next to the airport and then complain about the noise. They know its there and have been told it is there and they will put their house down and the next thing you know they have nothing but complaints. If Industrial already exists, she was not sure it was compatible with housing. Member Gavaldon thought that the compatibility was weak and it should stay Industrial. Member Colton moved to recommend approval of the Vineyard Rezoning as stated to be rezoned as Urban Estate citing the finding of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Colton recommended approval because he does think it is consistent with the direction that Council has given on the 1-25 Subarea Plan. That is to have a transition from the Interstate and from Industrial and Employment to less dense land uses such as Urban Estate and even less dense into the County. He understands that there are trucks going by there but it did not sound like a huge number of trips. He thought that there were opportunities for buffering and clustering. This is consistent with the two rezonings that were done south of Vine where there is Industrial and Urban Estate. Member Carpenter asked about the 1-25 Subarea Plan and if they could use that. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the Council has not yet approved the Plan and his view of it from a legal perspective is that it does not exist until it has been approved by the City Council. Member Carpenter suggested that this item be continued until the 1-25 Subarea Plan is approved because this is a big piece of that. Member Gavaldon agreed because it would help the Board out more definitively. Chairperson Torgerson commented that in light of the revised staff report the Board does have support for the rezoning independent of the 1-25 Corridor Plan, at least from staffs perspective. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 10 Member Carpenter still felt like the Board needed that Subarea Plan to make a decision on this. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the concerns he had heard tonight were all compatibility concerns. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the applicant's thought were on a continuance until June. Mr. Karasa replied that they have been waiting years for that Plan to be approved and he felt that it was almost complete and they were more than willing to wait a little longer. Member Colton withdrew his previous motion. Member Carpenter agreed. Member Colton moved to continue this item until the June 19`h Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that one thing that has bothered her about the 1-25 Subarea I Plan is that she did not think that Council worked off of an aerial so when they were making these changes, etc., she thought they based it on how they wanted it to look on paper. They really did not go out and so to speak "walk the land". When they made the Industrial to buffer the highway from the residential, she did not think they went out there and realized that this was going to change the Industrial that was already out there. She hoped that there was time in a worksession to discuss this if we do feel as though it is an issue to be brought up to Council before they adopt the Plan. It might also be brought up when the Subarea Plan comes before the Board. She thought it was an important issue that should be looked at. We are impacting some businesses out there and we are setting up businesses to move again. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Meyer and Torgerson voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. F Planning d Zoning : . . . Aug t 21, 2003 . , . Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Colton, Schmidt, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Barkeen, Shepard, Olt, Jones and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the April 17 and July 17, (Continued), 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #29-94C Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One— Project Development + Plan. 3. #14-03B Golden Meadows Business Park, 2"d Filing — Project Development Plan. Discussion Agenda: 4. #10-03 Timberline Village Community Shopping Center— Project Development Plan. 5. #6-03A Cambridge House Apartments — Modification of Standards. 6. #2-03 Vineyard Rezoning. Member Craig pulled Item 2, Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the April 17, 2003 minutes and Item 3 on the Consent Agenda. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 2 Project: Vineyard Rezoning, #2-03 Project Description: Request to rezone a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25. The parcel is 78.6 acres in size and is currently zoned I, Industrial. The proposed rezoning would rezone the eastern 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to Urban Estate residential, the remaining 34.8 acres of land adjacent to 1-25 would remain zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the 1-25 Special Corridor Study on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: I City Planner Bob Barkeen explained to the Board that this item was previously heard by the Board on April 17, 2003 and continued until the approval of the 1-25 Subarea Plan. The idea being that we did not want to go ahead and consider this rezoning until it was supported by the 1-25 Subarea Plan. On August 19th, City Council did adopt the Subarea Plan, which this rezoning request is now in compliance with that adopted Subarea Plan. He stated that there has been some neighborhood opposition to this rezoning. An adjacent owner of industrial property next to this rezoning is raising compatibility questions Public Input. Steve Woodward, Fort Collins Feed, 1020 NE Frontage Road spoke to the Board about his concerns. His property adjoins this property and he has an industrial property. He has concerns with the 18-wheel trucks that run on Vine Drive, his property and trucks being vandalized and children's safety if they find their way onto his property. He stated that when they put these houses in, he is going to put in lighting because he is going to make sure his trucks are safe. His safety concerns will cause him to ask for a very high fence and even barb wire because he does not want anything to happen to one of his trucks or one of his trucks to run over a child. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFT August 21, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Woodward addressed the noise of his trucks. His secretaries complain about the noise when the trucks are idling out front. You can hear the trucks backing up with an alert noise. The trucks then blow a whistle when they are then going to go forward. The trucks have to idle 15 or 20 minutes just to get the air built up. He complained about theft and vandalism and having to pay for it. Mr. Woodward also has concerns with the canal and someone jumping into the canal and that he would be responsible for their death. Dave Ferrin, 4336 East Vine Drive spoke to the Board about his concerns. He stated that the reason he bought out here is because it is or was in the country. The industrial sites sometimes make some noise and sometimes the highway makes noise, but in the last two years there must be about 200 houses build out here where it used to be all field. Just to the south of him, there is a development proposal underway, he went to a couple of meetings but is unaware where it is in the process. All of a sudden he is not going to be in the country anymore. He stated that a lot of the trucking companies use East Vine Drive to get across town from North College and head east on Highway 14. It is a very heavily traveled road by large trucks. The speed limit is 55. He has not seen any plans on what would be proposed, but he assumed that the only place for access would be off of Vine Drive. He was concerned with adding any more traffic. He would like to see before this rezoning is approved any plans for the property and improvements that would be made to Vine Drive. He wondered if people would buy homes on this place and then complain about the industrial uses in the area. Mr. Ferrin was concerned with adding more housing out here and that it might become another Waterglen. Ken Crumb, 802 Waterglen Drive and owner of approximately 150 acres to the west and adjacent to Waterglen. He has set through numerous hours of debate regarding the 1-25 Subarea Plan and he believes that the dollar amount was about $300,000 to bring that Plan forward. A lot of professional time went into the Plan from both staff and consultants. He believed that the city has adopted and supported a good Plan. It is important that as the Plan develops it develops appropriately. He was here tonight to support the staffs recommendation on this property as it relates to the Subarea Plan. If appropriate buffering is used, it is a legitimate concern with industrial and residential, that he would support the Plan. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked for Planner Barkeen to review the buffering standards. Planner Barkeen replied that the adjacent industrial owner indicated that he would likely put up barbwire if a residential project would go in. That is possible DIR . T Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 4 in the industrial zone district, barbwire is permitted. Staff would certainly like to work with the adjacent property owner if a project is submitted to come up with some buffers between the two uses to minimize the noise impacts that may be affected on this new residential area. Also to come up with some ways to discourage children from going on to the property. Perhaps there would be some techniques as to where sidewalks are located, where some fencing may go to discourage people from crossing the ditch. Those are things that we would look at when staff does actually get a site plan that we can review. Chairperson Torgerson asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to summarize a memo that he had written regarding buffering when residential moves in next to industrial. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that it was a different project, but again it was a neighboring industrial and the question was whether or not there was any law that protected the existing industrial. He found in the State Law an agricultural protection provision, but it does not extend to the industrial use here which is a trucking operation. So you can expect conflicts between the residential and the industrial uses. We had the same experience with the pipe manufacturing on Timberline Road. He would anticipate that the same thing will happen with this project. Chairperson Torgerson asked that at present is there nothing in our Code that would protect the existing industrial use. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that you could anticipate that neighbors will be complaining. We do have a noise ordinance in the city that would be insisted on by the neighbors to be enforced against the trucking operation if the noise left the site of the trucking operation. Director Gloss added that we do have some design standards, that call for some discretion on staffs part, on the design of land use transitions where you have very different land use categories right next to each other. Although if you read through those sections, it is generally geared toward the opposite condition where you are adding an industrial use next to residential areas as opposed to the condition that we have here tonight. It does give some latitude in terms of how that transition is made. It does not give a set horizontal distance. We have some things in the language regarding scale, form, materials and colors. Also some of the operational things like lighting and how it is handled in the transition area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFT August 21, 2003 Page 5 Director Gloss addressed the comment this evening regarding lighting. He stated that we require cut-off fixtures and there is a specific amount of lighting that can be provided on the site. There is no light trespass onto adjacent property. If lighting was to be added to the existing industrial use, it would have to abide by the city standards, so there would be no glare and light trespass. There would be some regulations to that affect. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that it was reported in the memo he sent that the City Council and the Health and Safety Committee decided not to pursue a law that would protect industrial or high intensity uses from residential uses that move to it. That could be done, in fact the provision that Director Gloss was referring to could be strengthened so it would protect better, the existing uses which have compatibility problems with residential uses. It would take the Council's willingness to change the Land Use Code to do that. Director Gloss stated that with the Urban Estate Zoning would give the property the opportunity to cluster the development. That type of design would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board. Two units per acre would be the maximum density, and they can cluster. It would be the Board's discretion i whether they have done it in a way that protects the natural features and does the type of buffering needed. The issue here is that we would typically not condition the approval on a cluster development coming in. It would only be if the property owner"chose" to do a cluster development. Chairperson Torgerson felt that there is a large hole in our code. It was curious as to why they would not pursue a law. It was almost like they want residential to drive industrial uses out of the city. He was sort of reluctant to approve a residential use change next to an industrial for fear that it would cause them to be forced out. Deputy City Attorney stated that the dilemma is that the Board and City Council have approved the 1-25 Plan. The 1-25 Plan calls for this to be Urban Estate which is different than Waterglen. Here we are now with this dilemma and do we think this is good planning? If we don't why did we approve the 1-25 Plan and it is a difficult decision for the Board. The zoning needs to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and the problem with that is the 1-25 Plan is now part of the Comprehensive Plan and it calls for this zoning. Member Craig stated that in going over the minutes of April 17th it bothers her that at that time it was asked of staff to start looking into or bringing it up at worksession the discussion of criteria. She agreed with Mr. Eckman that we are backed into a corner because the Board said that the Subarea Plan is o.k. and M Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 6 the Board said that the UE zoning was o.k. She thought that the Board also felt very strongly about the fact that we wanted some kind of criteria to protect the existing industrial. She feels that it fell through the cracks and is disappointed that it wasn't followed through with. That was back in April and here we are in August and nothing has been done to address it. She doesn't know how it can be remedied because the 1-25 Plan was adopted. On the other hand she wondered it there was something that could be put into the code before a project comes before the Board on this piece of property. Director Gloss replied that that specific topic has been added to be addressed in the fall Land Use Code changes. The second reading for those changes would be in December. Member Colton understood that there are some concerns with compatibility, but if we leave this all industrial then we are going to have compatibility issues with the FA-1 in the county as it develops in low-density housing. He thought that there is going to a conflict one way or the other. Frankly the Board had the chance to talk about this when we talked about the Subarea Plan but just went right through the Plan and approved it when there were some concerns to be addressed. He thought that at this point in time, he did not support everything about the Plan, but there are areas all over the Subarea Plan where there is Urban Estate up against Industrial. In fact there are areas all over the city and most of them have worked. He thought there needed to be a buffer and he thinks that the Board should go ahead and approve this because it is consistent with the Subarea Plan. Member Colton moved to recommend approval of the Vineyard Rezoning. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion. He felt there are compatibility issues. He felt that it would be easier to buffer into the County. He wants to see this stay Industrial because there is a canal there and the potential for risk. He would hate to see the industrial owner put up barbwire and stuff like that. He thought that keeping this industrial is the right thing to do. Member Craig was going to support the motion. She has two issues. One issue is when the Subarea Plan did come before this Board, we had a chance to address it then and we did not for whatever reason. One was that they were cut off before we could get into all the issues. Another is that we just did not bring it up. She felt that would have been the appropriate place to look at leaving it industrial and that is when that message should have been sent to Council. We Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFT August 21, 2003 Page 7 did not do that. She thinks that it is "imperative' that we put other things aside as a Board and sit down at worksession and really get serious about getting some criteria. It is not only are we going to have trouble with this piece of property, but as the Mulberry property comes in that was changed from industrial to residential we are going to keep running into this. She felt that it seriously needs to be addressed because it is not fair for industrial businesses to always look over their shoulder because we might change some zoning. They are our base jobs and we want to keep them. The second concern she has is that Mr. Ferrin did not know anything about the I- 25 Subarea Plan and yet he lives right there on Vine Drive. For whatever reason she does not know, but she would appreciate if staff would get in contact with Mr. Ferrin so he can understand how this came about. Chairperson Torgerson would not be supporting the motion even though he did support the Subarea Plan. The criteria that we are judging this by asks if it is compatible with surrounding land uses and given our current code it is not. We don't have anything in the code to make it compatible. He would support a code amendment to address the issue. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Gavaldon and Torgerson voting in the negative.