The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/04/2007 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE EAST SKYWAY REZONING ITEM NUMBER: 22 A-B AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December4, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Pete Wray SUBJECT Items Relating to the East Skyway Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading. On October 18, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (5-0) to recommend Council not approve the East Skyway Rezoning, with an added comment to consider this request as part of the South College Corridor Plan effort. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-107 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map Pertaining to Land along Skyway Drive East of College Avenue. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the East Skyway Rezoning. This area was annexed into the City as part of Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in April, 2007, under a Structure Plan designation of Urban Estate (U-E). The original intent of designating U-E for these properties was to acknowledge the existing large-lot County parcels zoned Farming in the County; U-E is the City's zoning that is most similar to the County's zoning. Staff has since considered the situation along this part of East Skyway in much more detail, in extensive discussions with owners, neighbors, and the County. These discussions have been prompted by issues related to an existing business at 209 East Skyway and by the recent annexation process in 2007. Staff finds that the properties along Skyway do not reflect the character of the Farming or Urban Estate designations, but bear closer resemblance to both the commercial uses in the area and the existing residential neighborhood (which is more dense than Urban Estate) to the north and east. As a result of the long history of discussions centering on 209 East Skyway, staff is recommending Council consider these changes now, rather than delay a decision further and include this item as part of the South College Corridor Plan process (Planning and Zoning Board recommendation), anticipated to be completed at the end of 2008. December 4, 2007 -2- Item No. 22 A-B BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map amendment will change the existing Structure Plan designation for two properties located at 209 and 225 on East Skyway Drive, Claire Court, one property on Clair Court, and a City owned parcel. The first property (209 East Skyway) is a proposed/recommended change from Urban Estate to a combination of Commercial and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The second property (225 East Skyway) will change from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Claire Court, a cul-de-sac which extends south off of Skyway Drive, will change from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The City owned parcel east of Claire Court will change from Urban Estate to Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridor designation. The corresponding proposed/recommended rezoning changes are as follows: (1) The first property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive. Existing zoning is Urban Estate. Proposed zoning is a combination of Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property and Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property. (2) The second property, at 225 East Skyway Drive, abuts the first property on the east, with existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a combination of Low Density Residential on the northern 1/3 of the property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 2/3 of the property. No such zoning amendment is needed for Claire Court, with an existing zoning of Low Density Residential. (3) The third property is adjacent and east of Claire Court and is City-owned (part of Prairie Dog Meadow) with an existing zoning of Low Density Residential. The proposed zoning is Public Open Lands, representing a housekeeping action. Site Description The site consists of two properties located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive, as well as Claire Court with its 9 fronting houses. The two properties along Skyway were recently annexed and zoned Urban Estate to match the County's zoning in April 2007 in Phase I of Southwest Annexation. Claire Court was already in City Limits. The first property at 209 East Skyway Drive, is 3.6 acres and includes a single-family detached home with a home occupation business and separate metal warehouse used for personal storage. The existing business is a small engine repair operation. The second property located at 225 East Skyway Drive, is 4.8 acres and includes an existing private Montessori School with a horse pasture extending behind the school. Claire Court includes 9 parcels. The City-owned property east of Claire Court is a vacant parcel of 1.5 acres. December 4, 2007 -3- Item No. 22 A-B The surrounding land uses/zoning are as follows: N: R-L; Existing single-family detached residential (Lynn Acres Subdivision) S: U-E; Existing vacant lots E: P-O-L; City Natural Area(Prairie Dog Meadow) W: C; Existing commercial businesses (South College Ave corridor) Structure Plan Amendment The City Structure Plan, a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), is a map that sets forth a basic framework which shows how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. City Plan allows for amendments through a Minor Amendment process as outlined in Appendix C. The two review criteria are: A. The City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and B. The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. This area was annexed into the City as part of Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in April, 2007, under a Structure Plan designation of Urban Estate (U-E). The original intent of designating U-E for these properties was to acknowledge and match as closely as possible the existing large-lot County parcels zoned Farming in the County; U-E being similar to the County's zoning. Staff has since considered the situation along this part of East Skyway in much more detail, in extensive discussions with owners, neighbors, and the County over several years. These discussions have been prompted by issues related to an existing business at 209 East Skyway, and also by the recent annexation process in 2007. Staff finds that the properties along Skyway do not reflect the character of the Farming or Urban Estate designations, but are more in character with both the commercial uses in the area, and the existing residential neighborhood to the north and east. At 209 East Skyway, staff is recommending a Commercial designation on the west 2/3 of the property, with a designation of Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property to provide a transition to the neighborhood (Attachments 1 and 2). This proposed Commercial designation is the substantive aspect of the proposed changes. It reflects the transitional, mixed character of the area: a U-haul truck facility in the Kelmar Strip commercial corridor is abutting to the west; the sides of single family homes are across Skyway; a Montessori school is abutting to the east; and two vacant 3-acre lots abut the property to the south. These two vacant lots appear to be candidates for future rezoning, but will be considered as part of the upcoming South College Corridor Plan process because the issues have not been considered as thoroughly as at 209 and 225 East Skyway. South and southeast of the two vacant lots, land uses include a permanent City Natural Area, Humane Society headquarters, City bus facility, and a range of"city-edge" residential lots ranging from about 1/4 acre to over an acre in the Lynn Acres County subdivision, all well within view of the subject property. The existing small business on the subject property and any future new commercial uses on the subject property can form a transition from existing U-Haul and other commercial uses adjacent December 4, 2007 -4- Item No. 22 A-B to the west, now and in the future. Further commercial changes to the subject property appear likely and would both trigger improvements (e.g., landscaping, sidewalk, and changes to the existing 6-foot chain link fence) to meet Land Use Code development standards, and would improve the street frontage and appearance on East Skyway. The changes involving Low Density Residential are much less substantive. The Low Density Residential designation for the remaining eastern portion of 209 and northern portion of 225 East Skyway is more appropriate than the current Urban Estate based on existing development and density of houses and the school. It also provides a more logical land use pattern with a transition in intensity from College Avenue eastward. A cul-de-sac of houses called Claire Court, abutting 225 East Skyway, is also included in the recommended Low Density Residential designation because it simply fits that designation rather than its current UE designation (which allows a maximum of two dwelling units per acre). Staff considers the Low Density Residential portion of the proposed changes to be minor editing of the Structure Plan map, to create a more logical and orderly land use pattern along Skyway and fitting existing development to the right designation. A final proposed amendment includes the property adjacent to and east of Claire Court, a City owned parcel which is part of a larger open lands acquisition in 2003 (Prairie Dog Meadow). The existing land use designation is Urban Estate and the proposed designation is Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors. Request for C and R-L Zoning— Section 2.9.4(H) Staff is recommending that the Plan Amendment be approved and Commercial (C), Low Density Residential (R-L), and Public Open Lands (POL) zoning be implemented as a related action. The request to rezone the two parcels from U-E to C and R-L, and one parcel from U-E to POL (Attachments 3 and 4). This change is considered quasi-judicial (versus legislative) since the parcels are less than 640 acres. There are five standards that may be used in evaluating a request for a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies, are summarized below: 1. Mandatory requirements: A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan: The request for the C, R-L, and POL zoning districts is consistent with the City Structure Plan as amended in the proposed prior action. The Commercial zoning change would be compatible with the existing commercial to the west along the Kelmar Strip and the other mixed-uses in the area, provide a transition between the College Avenue commercial and residential use to the east, and provide a transition between the College Avenue Kelmar Strip commercial and residential use to the east. The change from Urban Estate to Low Density Residential is more compatible with the existing residential neighborhood to the north and east. The change from Low Density Residential to Public Open Lands is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood to the west and north and existing open lands owned by the City. December 4, 2007 -5- Item No. 22 A-B B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Changed conditions in the area are largely a result of what has developed on and around these two parcels since the time of County Zoning of FA- Farming in the early 1960's. The area now reflects a more "mixed urban fringe" character than farming or rural residential character. Staff finds that a change to Commercial zoning on part of 209 East Skyway is warranted given the situation on the 3.6-acre property and the mix of uses in the area. The proposed Low Density Residential is appropriate to reflect the residential and school development which has occurred along East Skyway. The City-owned property purchased in 2003 warranted a map change then, but was missed at the time. This rezoning represents a house keeping action to update the zoning map based on previous decisions. 2. Additional, Optional Considerations: C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land. As stated above, staff has determined that the current Urban Estate is not the most appropriate zoning in between existing commercial and low density residential uses. Staff finds the proposed amendment for 209 East Skyway to be compatible with the existing commercial area to the west, the existing residential to the north, and the various uses that make up a mixed character to the south and east. The change to 225 East Skyway would better reflect the existing residential character across the street to the north and east. D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. Staff finds no adverse environmental impacts. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The proposed amendment results in a logical and orderly development pattern by allowing a modest, transitional amount of additional commercial use on a portion of 209 East Skyway adjacent to existing commercial use to the west and north of the property. The change from U-E to R-L simply reflects the existing residential development on and around the subject properties. This is essentially a "house keeping" change to create a more logical and orderly pattern than the current pattern, which includes U-E on properties, that better fit the R-L designation. The R-L clearly fits the existing residential uses and any potential future residential development that could occur on the east part of December 4, 2007 -6- Item No. 22 A-B 209 East Skyway. The initial zoning of U-E as part of the South College enclave annexation and zoning was close to reflecting the existing uses, but based on further review by staff, a recommendation to change to Low Density Residential zoning provides a more logical and orderly development pattern and transition to surrounding uses in the area. Neighborhood Meeting Summary A neighborhood meeting was held on August 30, 2007. A more detailed summary is attached. The number of property owners in attendance was six. The following main points are as follows: • Of the six property owners in attendance, five supported the proposed plan amendment and rezoning. A general response included support for the existing small engine repair business and other planned commercial uses requested by the owner of 209 East Skyway and changes to 225 East Skyway. • One owner did not support the proposed plan amendment and rezoning. The comments focused on history of previous County decisions, compatibility concerns, and a general opposition to commercial zoning for this location. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: In evaluating the request for a Structure Plan Amendment and rezoning, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Appendix C of City Plan through a Minor Amendment process including a need for the change and promoting the public welfare, and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan. B. The proposed rezoning is consistent with City Plan and more specifically the City Structure Plan Map, since the two actions are being done as a unified package. C. The proposed rezoning amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land. D. The proposed rezoning amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. E. The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning. On October 18, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (5-0) to recommend Council not approve the East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning, with an added comment to consider December 4, 2007 -7- Item No. 22 A-B this request as part of the South College Corridor Plan effort. The rationale for this recommendation is based on looking at the larger context of adjoining properties and if there is any other changes warranted with additional analysis as part of the corridor planning process. ATTACHMENTS 1. Structure Plan Amendment—Existing Structure Plan 2. Structure Plan Amendment—Proposed Structure Plan Map 3. East Skyway Rezoning—Existing Zoning Map 4. East Skyway Rezoning—Proposed Zoning Map 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary of Comments 6. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, October 18, 2007 7. Powerpoint presentation Attachment 1 RN DR _- E SATURN D R TR �� T O m t- A N Z - LMN— _ NIN 2CT �- a o Q r sr U Z DR F- U w 225 209 E.Skyway g City of E.Skyway Dr. Dr. U Fort Collins 4 UE - I UE -.. UE East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment N Existing Structure Plan A F eAmendment Area structure Plan Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Parcels �� Commercial Corridor District Open Lands,Parks and Stream Corridors 0 150 300 600 Urban Estate Feet Attachment 2 -- - — RN DR E SAT URN DR _ 0 m A v3�i Zy F- 3 - LMN ._._—___— _ MN U rY sr U FF — --------- DR U W K 209 g City of E.Skyway Dr, E.Skyway U Fort Collins Dr. UE I —_. CHERYLEN ST Lit — ----I UE Q W J JQ - Co UE East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment N Proposed Structure Plan A Legend [= Parcels Structure Plan Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods 0 Amendment Area Br Commercial Corridor District IMI Open Lands,Parks and Stream Corridors 0 150 300 600 Urban Estate Feet Attachment 3 E SATURN DR Rq�F T ��tp _ O m A 22 or > o � RL ST O H w E SKYWAY DR F- U 209 22 Or E.Skyway Dr. E Skywa Dr. y U Fortlry Collins UE W`. w to UE Legend EastSkyway Dr. Rezoning CITY Zoning Low Density Residential _ Commercial '7 Urban Estate N Existing Zoning public Open Lands Parcels A Rezone Area N\ 0 150 300 600 Feet Attachment 4 E SATURN DR rRgQ T m Zy � cr > s RL 0e, s ° F- E SKYWAY DR H U 'r 225 •i f E.Skywa Dr. E.Skyway g Fo Ili Dr. U UE n UE i Legend East Skyway Dr. Rezoning City Zoning Low Density Residential Commercial Urban Estate N ProposedZoning Public open Lands O Parcels Rezone Area N\ 0 150 300 600 Feet Attachment No. 5 East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning— File # 19-07 Summary of Neighborhood Meeting Held on August 30th, 2007 A neighborhood meeting was held on August 30`h, 2007 for the East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning item. The meeting was held at the Montessori School located at 225 East Skyway Drive beginning at 7:00 p.m. In addition to two City staff, 6 property owners attended the meeting. The following comments were recorded: • The two long-term existing businesses located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive are good neighbors and I have no objections to the proposed amendments. I would like to see them continue in business and support whatever they want. • We don't need any more additional hoops and City requirements to regulate existing businesses out of town. • Why not focus on Kelmar Strip commercial businesses? • What is the rezoning going to improve in the area? • Is the City initiating the amendment and rezoning? • What do we want the alley for? What happens with the garages on that alley? • The existing businesses do not need City intervention—leave them alone. • Is the small engine repair business legal as operated today? Is outdoor storage allowed with existing zoning? • Why do we need commercial east of Aran Street? • For 209 Skyway, any change of use would trigger a development application. • Why not address vacant properties to south? • P &Z Board and Council should get history of 209 Skyway actions • I have a fear of addressing these individual properties w/o comprehensive plan— appears patchwork • Does this rezoning set a precedent? Are the existing buildings on 209 Skyway compliant w/commercial use standards? Supports change as proposed hi support of change The following comments were forwarded the next day by one of the property owners who attended the meeting: My concern is the migration of commercial zoning to the east. Existing structure plan zoning seems appropriate to me. If we are going to allow commercial east of Kelmar Strip, then all properties on the east side of the future Aran street should have the same opportunity to be commercial. I am verytroubled b code compliance. It always slips its way into the i Y p y p y discussion when staff states the business can continue. It is the use by right of home occupation as defined by the Larimer County Land Use Code that continues, not the current zoning violations on the property. Staff cannot simply say the business use can continue. Need a code compliance expert at P&Z and Council. The Whitman's want to be developers and it is not about their small business. Developers must pay their own way. I believe it is inappropriate for staff to process this zoning change. It is not in the best interest of the City. The property owners should be doing it. Staff talks about a better transition along Skyway. What is wrong with what is there, which is exactly what was planned(except for the zoning violations). Why is 225 E Skyway included??? Its use is legal and conforming, so why include it? Why are properties to the south not included??? The proposal is a patchwork of zoning, inconsistent with the structure plan. Will proposed zoning changes create a change in condition that allows other zoning changes? Why do this now? Why not wait for the South College Corridor Plan? Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 2 August 30, 2007 • Not only inconsistent with structure plan, it is inconsistent with the history of the properties. Need to furnish history to P&Z and Council. The history of the properties which is clearly a rejection of commercial use consistently and over time, and much of it could have been controlled by the City. • What happens if approved?? What uses are allowed without review and meeting city standards? • Existing residence should be included in RL. • Are building codes compliant for commercial use? Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 3 August 30, 2007 Attachment 6 Planning and ZoningBoard October1 • 11 Council Liaison: Diggs Brown Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W)223-1820 Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: 491-2579 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Wetzl Excused Absences: Campana, Stockover Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, J on, eavitt, and S z-Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Con'se d Discus ion Agendas. I note— staff has requested Item #2 220 E. Olive Street-Modi k of S rds#27-07 be led and an additional condition added (it will be read into the record la T re re two ergo n Item #3,the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins—the adoption dat the Timnath Comprehensive Plan was June 2007 and the Loveland Compr sive Plan was 20 em #4, East Skyway Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment was continued September 2 eting. Item #6, 1225 Redwood Street Minor Amendment would n n administra ew by staff but because of its potential compatibility issues with the ne bo as been rred to the Board. Citizen participation: None Chair Lingle ask mer-n f the !hnce and or th oard if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. No'ad al item . ere moved fro a Consent Agenda. Consent Aga .f 1. Mi tem `= 0, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. a-Mile Plan City y rt Collins Dis s ems: 2. 22 ive Street— ification of Standards, #27-07 4. East Rezoning d Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 5. Interstat late Hi ay 392 Interchange Improvement Plan 6. 1225 Red w tree Minor Amendment, #30-02B Member Schmidt mo d for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0. Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 2 Project: 220 East Olive Street— Modification of Standards, #27-07 Project Description: This is a request for six stand-alone Modifications of Standard in conjunction with a pending multi-family redevelopment Project located at 220 East Olive Street. All six Modifications relate to density, lot coverage and height standards 'in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B zone district. The parcel is located at the northwest corner of East Olive Street Mathews Street. Recommendation: Approval subject to two conditions—one conditi lating to preserving the integrity of underground utilities and at the ti bmittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the west eleva ' she onstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G)— Building Height e w and n 3.5.1(H)— Land Use Transition. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Othe ence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this request is for six 'ne Modifications in conjunction with a pending Project Development Plan located at 220 Eas Street. All six Modifications relate to development standards in the Neighbo Conservation Bh -C-B zone district. The pending P.D.P. would be a request for a redevelopm o'act at the northwest comer of Olive and Mathews Streets across fr- Li The a mg structure would be razed. The proposal consists of constructing a new fo to i fing of 14 dwelling units with parking below-grade. The f cry would be d back he first three stories except along a portion of the north fa t floor units uld offer a ption for live-work potential. Access to the underground pa would m the alley ng the west property line. This west property line is also the boun betwe he Downtown n and the N-C-B zone. The lot measures 90' x 140'for a total of 12,60 re f Staff has bee acted by a ing pr ner to the west at 230 Remington Street. The owner ha,d�in irate ' has rns with the building achieving a height of four stores along a portion the west eleva Theo w was unable to attend the public hearing, is concerned about a eight and massy a west ion. While he supports the overall intent and design concept project, his particular cc ms are as follows: e height and ss of a building's west elevation could be mitigated increasing the back of the 'urth floor from the third floor. 2. Th c ht and mass of the building's west elevation could be mitigated with further archi a ' all ellishment and detail. Both the applicant and hitectural consultant have discussed these issues with the adjoining owners and all parties agree to continue to meet in order to resolve these design issues. Jeff Fleischer of Vaught-Frye Architects presented slides that showed space and site plans, elevations, and building cross sections that highlighted the reduced square footage on each of the four building levels. Member Wetzler asked if they'd had conversations with the adjoining property owner. Owner Jay Stoner reported that he'd had an extended conversation with the owner who lives in Boulder. The Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 3 concern, he believes, is he thinks the structure is too flat and too big. He believes that impression comes from the review of the elevation drawings. He believes with.a better understanding of the complexity of the elements of design, some of his concerns will be allayed. They want to be good neighbors and will do their best meeting with their architects to reconfigure. It will be a challenge, given the areas for which reductions might be considered are the bedrooms and bathrooms. His goal, however, is to make the neighbor a fan and not an opponent of the project. Public Input None. Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning &Zoning Board approve the six modification of standards for 220 E. Olive Street, #27-07, including the two co including the one being the approval of all affected utilities at the time of the review a yre and at the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the w s evatio II demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G)— Building Height Rev ni3 Sect!on ` ' H)—Land Use Transition. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0. Project: East Skyway Rezoning and Structur Amendment, # 19-07 Project Description: This is a request to amen Plan Stru n Map, and to rezone two properties on East Skyway Dri ad by Ci taff. The Plan amendment will change the existing I d us two properties from Urban Estat mercial and ensity a itial. The rezoning change is as foil he firs arty is located,at 209 East Skyway Drive and the existing ing is an Estate. ThEposed zoning includes a change to erc n the west 2/3= a property, and a change to Low Density R the property. The d prop ted at 225 East Skyway Drive, with an existing ning an Estate. The proposed zoning is a change to Low Density identi he orth 1/3 of the property and retains the remaining south z 2f the pr as Urban Estate. Recommen 'on: Approve r. Hearinn Testimony' ritte omments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Pete; ray reported this is a City staff initiated action. The Plan amendment would change the existing Structure Plan designation for the subject properties from Urban Estate to a combination of Commercial and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, along with partial retention of Urban Estate. The corresponding rezoning changes are as follows: 1)the first property is located at 209 E. Skyway Drive. Existing zoning is Urban Estate. Proposed zoning is a combination of Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property and Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property. 2)The second property, at 225 East Skyway Drive, abuts the first property on the east, with existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a combination of Low Density Residential on Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 4 the northern 1/3 of the property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 2/3 of the property. The site consists of two properties located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive, as well as Claire Court with its 9 fronting houses. The-two properties along Skyway were recently annexed and zoned in April 2007 in Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Claire Court was already within the city limits. The first property at 209 E. Skyway Drive is 3.6 acres and includes a single-family detached home with a home occupation, and a separate metal warehouse used for personal storage. The existing business is a small engine repair operation. The second property located at 225 E. Skyway Drive is 4.8 acres and includes an existing private Montessori School an ' rk'Q9 lot, with a horse pasture extending behind the school facility. Claire Court is an existin -de-sac with nine single family detached houses. This overall item is a recommendation to City Council on a s u of tw ons. The first action is to amend the City Structure Plan map as a Minor Amend o City Plan its criteria found in Appendix C. The second action is to then rezone the tw ope s along Sk be consistent with the Structure Plan, under the criteria of Section 2 )(2) and(3) of the Land de. The changes are recommended because the properties Sk o not reflect tF character of Farming or Urban Estate designations—they are more in c with th commercial uses in the area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north a t. They believe the Commercial designation is a substantive aspect of pro ed changes and re the transitional, mixed-use character of area including existing U-Haul cking business Im r Strip to the west and north, the existing single-family homes acros a Montesso of to the east, the two vacant lots that abut to the south (which also ear es for fut rezoning,)and the properties to the south/southeast: City natural a, eadquarters, City Transfort facility and large-lot residen ' n Acres su ion. Ad i ly, future commercial changes appear likely and would t ' ements to p arty such as landscaping, sidewalk, fencing and meeting LUC develop stands New comme ial use and required improvements would enhance the street f and ap rance on Eas w k ay. Staff also believe the Low D i ion is minor editing of the Structure Plan Map . and more appr oJ„ djorrema Baste ( of 209 and 225 E. Skyway than Urban Estate because f[)ie exis rrn� .ontesso ool located between residential, the existing homes on Claire Court a[Ady zoned RL, future p ent of residential will match the existing neighborhood acrossI6 street and the Ire,Court Staff is recomr nding this ite ,rWove forward for a decision by City Council now rather than wait until the South Coleg rridor Plans completed in 18 months. Deputy City Attomer. _ ul Ecfsmman noted what appeared to be an error on the Structure Plan map, a panhandle extension E mto the POL zone. Wray responded that error was discovered at the Board's work session would be corrected prior to City Council review. Member Smith said Wray noted it was not appropriate to have UE between Commercial and Residential; would the same logic not apply between RL to POL? Wray responded that POL reflects public ownership of that property and is appropriate for City acquired land. Smith said his concern is the character of the property. Wray responded that the zoning designation is consistent with other publicly owned land and reflects an assembly of City acquired property. When looking at Skyway, they discovered the map did not reflect the particular POL parcel accurately. These recommended changes reflect the correct configurations. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 5 Chair Lingle asked, "In the existing UE, what is the status of 209 Skyway and the Montessori school— are they considered legal non-conforming uses?" Wray responded that the property is legal as a private residence with a home occupation small engine repair business and a detached warehouse for personal use. The Montessori school is allowed in UE and in Low Density Residential. The recommendation for the zoning change was made given the commercial uses to the west and LMN uses to the north. Chair Lingle noted the line between the C and LR did not follow the parcel ' e; did the demarcation come from a legal description? Wray said yes. Lingle said it appeared eastern edge of the commercial area. Wray reported the line was drawn 20 feet from the ting home to allow for setback. In the event the owners wanted to subdivide, it would be 'ble with other lot sizes in the area. Chair Lingle said it appears the impact from 209 Skyw ou o the south as opposed to the east. Member Schmidt said she was comfortable with 209 Sk in but has rase s with the proposal to rezone property east on Skyway as LMN. a exist in zoning is LIE, w ;_ hanging it to RL but the Structure Plan will be LMN. Her prefere Id be t ave as LIE unti rridor Plan is completed. Wray said after Phase I of the Southwest Annexation, staff h a chance to further review the LIE zoning (found in rural settings) and think it Id be more suita ng the edges. In the larger context, given the mix of uses and what els kyway, LMN id i the transition more than UE. Public Input Brian Schumm, 805 Molina, hared his reservati out the tion of commercial zoning to the east. There are reasons I M1 %un and now the ty, should a pause to how the area is zoned. MW The existing StructureNsiduld ms ropriate—th roposal is a patchwork of zoning—inconsistent with the Structure Plaare g g to allow co er 'al east of the Kalmar strip, then all properties on the east h e the same opp nity to be commercial. Action now predetermines what wi n i ed ' e Corridor Plan study. Randy W ' an, ay, the previous speaker(Mr. Schumm) is not directly affected by zoning he area. His ss ha an approved in the County. The past few years, he's been tryin with the Co u d the use of the IGA(intergovernmental agreement,)with the City. Wh ff member Pe ray says makes perfect sense—it is commercial south of them in the Larimer Hu Society and sfort area. If Aran Street does go in, it will provide perfect access for commercia a nice tran n into the neighborhoods. He supports the request to amend the City Plan Structu n Map, d to rezone the two properties on East Skyway Drive. Danielel Kanczes, 15 Spruce, asked if any homes will be tom down? Wray responded this was a proposal to ame he Structure Plan map and rezoning—there would not be any demolition of existing homes. Andrea Phillipe, 209 E. Skyway, said the proposal has a lot to do with progress.. Over the past nine years, they been trying to work first with the County and now the City to get the property rezoned. They're happy that now it is only one entity with whom they will need to work. The property is ready to be commercialized and would be an asset to Fort Collins. End of Public Input Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 6 Chair Lingle asked Staff member Wray if he had any responses to the issues raised in public input. Wray responded that at neighborhood meetings (summarized and included in the agenda packet,)the majority of neighbors are in support of the rezoning—only Mr. Schumm is opposed. Member Schmidt asked for more information on Aran Street. Does it currently run north and south? Wray responded Aran Street is a proposed future connection on the back side of the Kalmar strip starting at the U-Hall property and extending to Trilby. It would separate t commercial and residential zones. Schmidt asked if the right-of-way currently exists. W onded no. It would happen as projects come forward—the appropriate dedication would place then. Schmidt asked if a commercial development was proposed in the Skyway area, w be the party responsible for the dedication of the street. Wray responded that it would de d o pecifics of the proposal. Chair Lingle asked Wray what is the approximate street fro r e fo 209 Sk L. Wray responded 60-80 feet. Lingle has a concern about that airing UE but for a ent reason—it is narrow. Because of the street configuration of Boyne rt to Colby Street, if the Id a an allowable street coming from Skyway drive to the s� is likely development o ential would be limited to one lot on Skyway and a second lot o_ tie sou t 17 moray agreed. T re's a potential for two, maybe three lots there. Lingle went further to state—the access be difficult. Wha - t tells him is there would be pressure in the future to have that area rez nd push com development further east. He'd rather see it included in the larger UE p outh and use some sort of cluster development proposal where that narrow strip ul ted open pace—which would provide more protection from commercial to the residen I uni is a guessing game but it's a walk through on the potential, velopment in ea. Member Schmidt agre She lik see the rez ' g more connected to the UE zone, part of the Structure Plan, and lea ome fie ty on how it c d laid out for the future. She understands why the commercial ne s: be clew ed up now but d like some flexibility for the rest. Member Rol' ray if onsi ere > ;t ng the large building on the west part of the property onde did consider that and their findings were the small engine repair ness (a large ) is of the home. Rather than split it they thought it would be belt culate the se tb om the a of the building. Rollins asked if the house, with the small en pair business, allowale use in UE. Wray responded yes. Member Schm ked if a se to use could be added in the commercial zone. Wray responded that if another us ueste would trigger a commercial development review. Staff would look at the proposed use a at an enclosed building is required. Additional improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, improvements, and right of way requirements might also be required based on the scope of proposed development. Chair Lingle said he thinks there are basically two questions. 1) Is the property basically residential or commercial in nature? If commercial in nature and rezoned to C, would the Board be allowing an appropriate amount of intensification that is detrimental or not? 2) If appropriate to go with Commercial, is the 60-80 feet along UE(or proposed RL) an adequate buffer to the existing residential to prevent a further encroachment of commercial? I think that commercial should not go any further east than the proposed line and having that strip east remain in UE is probably more appropriate right now. Then allow 225 E. Skyway to be RL and the POL piece POL. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 7 Member Schmidt said she believes they are wrestling with spot zoning. What's happening now is allowed in UE. We're not totally saying it's commercial so keep it that way—it could be either UE or commercial. The impression is rezoning is happening because the applicant would like to intensify commercial uses. She keeps coming back to maybe we should wait for Structure Plan changes which are anticipated in the next 18 months. That would allow us to look at the whole in more detail. Member Rollins agreed. The South College Corridor Plan is going to happen—let's put off rezoning questions until that work is done. Member Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if the motion la age is any versus not recommend. Eckman recommended to not approve would be the ightforward. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning &Zonigg and n rove the East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 19 ; Mil ber Ro econded the motion. Member Schmidt said she'll like to see any rezoninq:asi of the I er South Colle cture Plan work. Member Smith said that while he struggled with it, he believes ;Should be considered in the larger context. Motion was approved 5:0. Project: Interstate 25&State High y 392 Interlhange Improvement Plan Project Description,:4' 's' a requ for a recomVallins on to City Council for acceptance of the I- 25 , 392 Interchange ImproI- n. Plan and related items, including amen tsYa e' of p Master Street Plan. Recomme anon: eiommen a ion to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 fi In Ych ,nge Impfr ment Plan and related items, including amendments to the w" City.' rt Collins" ifaster Street Plan. Hearing Testim .,Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City PlannerYPerayreported the interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 oth the southeastern gateway to Fort Collins and the western gateway to Windsor. The intas failed to function at an acceptable Level Of Service ('C")for the past several years. This being the case, numerous meetings and discussions involving the elected officials and staffs of Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have occurred over the past several years in an attempt to address this failing interchange. The importance of this interchange from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to existing and future development, and gateway into both jurisdictions is significant. Although the Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 8 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this area as a high priority project, there is no Federal or State funding available for a new interchange. In other words, the need for the interchange improvement is there, but the money is not. The existing interchange problem cannot be fixed by implementing smaller interim improvements such as frontage road realignment and ramp widening. The bridge overpass along with the supporting interchange infrastructure needs to be replaced to meet the long-term transportation needs for the next 20 years. The estimated cost to replace the interchange is $ 22 million. In March 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into an intergovernmenta reement(IGA)for the purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land uses at hange (see attached IGA). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was for th o municipalities to work cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconst f this interchange. The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to imp e t impro nts to the interchange. Key objectives included: • Identify Corridor Activity Center with supporting I use Coordinate with CDOT on EIS Process on pre d altern five • Develop alternative funding mechanisms to prole go directly into design. Identify supporting frontage road and local street rk Develop action strategies to implement improveme Plan Process Existing conditions are: • Interchange currently operating at a fadin F service. Area largely undeveloped Failing interchange reduces developmen ote al. Regionally importa esources anen space "se by. • Area serves as tewa indsor, southeast Fort Collins. Expected to ional tr t hub. • The Corridor Acti enter AC) includes co "ercial, employment and residential. Natural Resources a Recommen a nare ©U to 300 foot roof the of the natural features. .. Y50 foot buffer is ecommend eflands not adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. A bryuffer of 1,320 feet`ds"propose o protect bald eagle winter roosting areas as defined by Colo Department o ildlife (CDOW.) Transportation pfa�design inc' des: • 1-25/SH 392 b&ndge wilt die completely reconstructed. Layout will foll'86,1 a"tight diamond' configuration per North 1-25 Draft EIS. Construction wil�nclude: bridge replacement, ramps widening of SH 392 to tie in with new frontage roads and acceleration /deceleration lanes on 1-25. • NW frontage road alternatives. • SW frontage road alternatives. Transit&Trails: Transit service, in combination with highway capacity, improvements, including bike paths and sidewalks will provide alternative transportation options. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 9 • Future local bus services could act as feeder system to proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Park-and-Ride facility along 1-25. • This Plan recommends that the BRT facility(if constructed)would be located in the median of the highway, with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Park-and-Ride facilities on both sides of 1-25. • The BRT site could begin as a parking facility. Funding Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary challengeh funding scenarios match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to rep nticipated bonds over a twenty-year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction erchange bridge, ramps, frontage roads and landscaping is approximately$22 million. T nt' ost feasible strategy, three combination-funding scenarios were identified: Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and in es a special assess and property tax for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years, an i ct fee i osed on the"tra hec and a Public Improvement Fee (PIF). No municipal or oth@ manta pport is assum this scenario. Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes fin support from CDOT ($2.0 million), the NFRMPO ($1.2 million —future allocati ; ;and the municipa f Windsor($1 million) and Fort ° " .. Collins ($1 million); a lower special assessm . CAC landowne a loped land only)that sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property to n' downers. Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the burden far , and includes all municipal funding from Scenario 2 an ended pro x district a mill levy. There is also a small special assessment on a d CAC land at sunset i 10 years and a PIF. In the future, additio fundi beyond existin assumptions) may become available through sources such CDOT NF an re Regional'Transportation Authority. These public funds could be used to sup lemen to sources, reducing the burden on private citizens. Futureurtrtg source has an ould still require a private match and therefore to institutions(frameworltsined a would still be required. While the Plan does not have a spec'fiic 'tfnding recomme� ation, it i d that one or a combination of these funding scenarios will be used-to further negotiate a final g package to support the cost of the interchange improveril tss as implements a Conti es. Ma Critical Action ps are: • Accept tla • Amend the IG. ` COIi nue partnership • Request justifi o for separate action or utilize existing EIS • Commit funding: or 1601/EA process and other compliance activities • Amend IGA to secure public and private funding commitments • Assess APF Standards on future development at Interchange • Form General Improvement District • Preliminary/Final Engineering • Begin construction in 2009—2010 The 12-month planning rocess, initiated in the fall of 2006, is scheduled for acceptance by City Council on November 69 and the Windsor Town Board November 12, 2007. Staff requests a Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 10 recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Member Schmidt asked when you're looking at funding strategies at the end, at which step do you finalize whether you'll be using funding scenario 1, 2, or 3? Wray responded that while three funding scenarios have been identified, it will take further negotiations. Using the basis already established in scenario 2 (with financial support already identified for jurisdictions, MPO, CDOT;) it'll take more discussions with all, including property owners and developers. He anticipates that can happen in the next year or so. Member Schmidt asked if on the west side the buffers meet the wetla tandards. Wray asked if it was from roads. Schmidt said yes—road buffering from the wetlan moving the frontage roads to the west. Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt responded it as 0 to 300 feet depending on the wetlands. It's based on the size and value of the wetla dsk suppo 'Idlife habitat. Until an actual environmental ecological study is done we're just g n estima f the value. Because of development on the southeast side of Swed e t re's been a '. isturbance in that area so right now we're proposing a 100 foot buff om the oreline and the " Hands. Member Schmidt said it seems the roads meander thro a pa Will developme t drive their placement or will the layout of the frontage roads determin dev loped. Wray responded final alignment on the west side—the three frontage road options d be addressed as part of development. Ideally they will coordinate° eraI property align on both the NW and SW side. There may even be an interim improvemen the final interc is f Ily rebuilt. Member Smith asked Wray to describe how th .corn ctt center me to be defined— specifically interested in why the southeast bou ary iS o # r to CR 5 and south to State Highway 392 to pick up the la family residen ray res `, ed that they were primarily looking for land uses (C & E)on slide the intercha a that woul contribute to reconstruction costs. On the west—there is Idential at ountain Rangs.Shadows and south of the Growth Management Area is residential. 1. rtheast *adrant(Windso si„a)there is vacant land that could potentially be mixed use residential. Member Sc f there ould be a pment fees—residential properties assessed a special di ee they Wtd be benefiting from the interchange improvements. Wray respon in funding op an exuded property tax district with a mill levy was being considered all t to College on t st an ost of Windsor on the east side. It would involve a lot more people a Itiple jurisdicti It wou also be a lot more controversial. Some would say that's a more equita proach sin a regional facility. Chair Lingle ask ere the mmendation is coming from for the bridge being 4 versus 6 lanes. Where is that decisi mi rom, what is the data, how long is the life span? Interim Transportation Direct o Jackson said the analysis for the 4 lane bridge is directly related to the recently completed 1-25, nvironmental Impact Study, local traffic impacts and forecasts both for the Front Range and metropolitan Denver. Lingle said he would like to be reassured that the decision is not totally being driven by cost. Jackson said that he does not believe that's the case. He believes they're looking at a long range horizon—to the year 2035 or roughly 25 years. Lingle wondered if planning for that time frame is standard practice. Jackson responded yes. Lingle asked if there were any 6 lane bridges along the 1-25 corridor. Jackson responded no—in fact the Harmony Interchange is a 4 lane bridge. Jackson said Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 11 on the west, where there may be more intense development, there will be planning for the proper amount of access for the level of intensity with an adopted access control plan. Chair Lingle referred to page 44 of the I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan—it shows only three thru lanes. He wondered if we were locking ourselves into something too narrow for CDOT's ultimate plan for 1-25 as seen so far from their lane expansion from Dacono to Hwy 66. Jackson said CDOT is evaluating two packages as a part of their EIS—one is through lanes with a transit element (bus and/or train) and the other are 1-25 lanes with a transit system on the Burlington Northern tracks. Lingle asked if we're moving on an accelerated schedule would we be g ourselves to something that wouldn't work later with CDOT's planning. Jackson s ' o—what the Board is approving tonight is a recommendation to more forward. Either CD kage determination would be addressed in the final design of the interchange. A recomme ion ve forward does not preclude either CDOT(Federal Highway Administration approve pt'on. ionally the 1601 would include a more fine grain analysis before design wo - m eted. Member Schmidt wanted to commend the work of all those involved in developing an. Member Smith said it's a fairly complex project but very ou mut It's a great p and he'll be supporting it. Chair Lingle said his concerns about bridg sign meeting the oagterm needs of the region had been relieved. Member Wetzler says is a long needed and e ' ing Member Schmidt made a orthat the Pla Zonin and recommend approval of the Interstate 25 & State Hi hwii M nterchange proveme Ian. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passe 0. Proje 12 dwoo set' Minor Amendment, #30-02B Project ption: This is fen al a Minor Amendment to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwo treat into a supervised residential program specializing in voluntary drug an cohol rehabilitation. The existing building contains 20,500 square eat. T arcel is 5.5 acres, located at the northwest comer of Conifer Street ood Street and zoned Community Commercial — North College, Recommendation: proval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Shepard reported this is a request to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwood Street into a supervised residential program specializing in drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The project would be located at 1225 Redwood Street. The facility would house clients, admitted on a Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 12 voluntary basis, who seek to recover from drug and alcohol addiction in a residential setting. The facility will be professionally staffed on a 24-hour and seven-days-per-week basis. The staff will implement a modified 12-step program. The treatment will consist of three basic components: detoxification and withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling. A licensed physician will supervise the admittance procedure and the facility will not admit clients in need of a medically assisted withdrawal. Such clients will be referred to an appropriate facility. The one-story building contains 20,500 square feet. Any building renovations would be to the interior only. There will be'no exterior building modifications or site work. All exist' parking will remain. The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located at the northwest comer of Co eet and Redwood Street. The property is zoned Community Commercial— North Colle The proposed land use, Intermediate Health Care Facili a in the C-C-N, Community Commercial, North College zone district. • The P.D.P. as a whole complies with the applicable �aertera evelop tandards. • The Land Use Code is silent on most of the operat onal characteristics o termed Health Care Facility. The applicant's pledge to et on a regular basis wit s tatives from the neighborhood is found to be the most ective anc tematic metho ich to collaborate on solving neighborhood compatibilit is ues asky,arise. Staff recommends approval. Chair Lingle asked Shepard if from his revi eves it would b6an i PPnsification of its' existing use. Shepard said that intensification is a to s associate M traffic. Even comparing intensification of use to a prior like facility (Win ha icult. Vmg Shadow's program which included a school and its use followed the scho ea ey had approximately 20 youth in a group home. It is likely had more traffic g and g than what is expected with A Life Worth Living. Lingle note, occ'lfaRey limits wouI a goveme y building standards. Shepard agreed. �� s Member Schmidt asked 1N[lere is . e closest neighb ood?" Shepard replied the closest .. neighborhood is t the north—NokomI o�h south and west is vacant land. To the east is an electrica Appli [an Petcavag a repres ntative of a group of Colorado businessmen whose goal is to crea -profit residend ug reha6 program. Statistics show that in Colorado one in ten people have a d alcohol addict It is the intent of the owners to put a dent in the problem. 1225 Redwood fit purposes n —very little needs to be done internally except to update the fire suppression s The history of the p e is: • 1985 New Begi s Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center • 1993 Jacob Ce r, a substance abuse program • 1995 Diamond Crest Elder Board & Care Assisted Living Facity • 2002 Wing Shadow program which provided a variety of services for troubled youth The facility will deliver a modified 12-step program. The various steps include: • Detoxtwithdrawal • Life Skills courses One-on-one counseling Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 13 The program is residentially based and requires clients to remain at the facility. The facility will have 24 hours a day/7 days a week staffing. Member Rollins asked what will be the specific hours of operation. Petcavage responded 24/7. He went further to say the traditional model was 28 days. In this case, they will stay as long as necessary (average of 3.5 months)to complete all steps(detox/withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling.) There is a high staff to client ratio and clients do not leave for appointments without being stringently supervised by staff. Member Wetzler asked if they could slip away--take a break from the pr Petcavage noted the program is completely voluntary and at a fairly significant cost to the if they want to leave the program, arrangements are made with family members to pick the ey are taken to the airport (for out-of-state clients.) If would be rare that they would slip aw nd back given the limited access, the staff/client ratio, the program objectives. If they lea nd wa me back to the program, there would be an interview to see if the program ti good fi ern or if their return would be a problem for them or others. Wetzler asked h. '` eas ouId it be for to steal away and get a drug fix. Petcavage responded it would not.pvery eas for a number o on primarily because their money is taken from them while there #t; a are two` xit points that ar y monitored, and they are drug tested at entry and during tay._. Member Schmidt noted this is a private facility(not court ordefe with clients investing time and money in recovery. It's not a half-way hot. but rather a rehab r. Petcavage agreed. If neighbors have concerns he offered an ope , ;policy—let them" +fir their concerns and given the .� client's confidentiality and HIPPA constraints; e i rk with the trorhood. Member Schmidt asked how much traffic did the .ends rr*, °visitors and family. Petcavage expects 82 clients at capaci s will be strutedand arraried a week in advance for Sundays and holidays only. They ge traffic on any given Suntlay to be 6 or 7 visitors. Family will be involved more as at rea eave the program. Chair Lingle asked 'rf the sis f e facility going Jobe local, regional or national. Petcavage said they would be starting by and referrals grow they expect a national mix. Chair Lingle noted the amendment i tly lated to a change of use. He asked for clarification from whet to this? Shepard" esnonde revious minor amendment(from Wing Shadow to current use (as daycare))was not referred to t Board. This amendment is changing it from its current use to what's betNd &" posed. Member SchfCed what Is the difference between a rehab program and a large group care facility. Shepard seid" ey ark defined differently in the Land Use Code. Wing Shadow was a school, a group home, and admC*Atrative offices; this use is defined as a long term care facility. Public Input Danielle Kanczes, 1560 Blue Spruce, noted her daughter currently goes to day care at this site. She attended the neighborhood meeting held a couple of weeks ago and she wanted to express her concerns to the Board. She has concerns about the change to a rehab center—she doesn't believe rehab is successful 99% of the time—in fact she knows people who can fool the system. Additionally, she thinks it'll bring crime to the neighborhood—violence and vandalism. She'd rather see it keep its current use. Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 14 Yvonne Ruth-Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce is a neighbor to Danielle. There are a large number of children in the area—she believes the rehab center will bring drugs and adversely affect the children in the neighborhood. She asked for clarification of a letter she'd recently received relative to the facility having medically assisted withdrawal. She has concerns about breach of contract—she believes the day care had entered into a three year lease for the facility. How does change of use fit into the fact there may be a breach of contract? Jim Ringenberg, attorney for the Pruess Family Foundation, said he wantedJo, clarify there is no written lease. He does not think the foundation, who has given sign*i the community, should be placed in a category alluding to breach. He's also comfortable give a discussion so far that reasonable minds can come together. End of Public Input Petcavage reported they have a physican on staff to do edica review on in to assess the addict's condition. There are some addictions that a ry difficu t to withdraw fro 6 that's the situation, they are referred to another facility. The have a dicaI program s Their program is for addicts whose withdrawal does not requi ical rt. Chair Lingle asked them to address the misconception about out patient with people coming and going. Petcavage said the patient co in to do the prog f they need to leave the facility (e.g. an appointment,)they are escorted by s til they comple r ram. When they leave the program arrangements are made for fami em up or the scorted to the airport. Member Schmidt asked what was an accurate represe €ast, etcavage responded the program is$29,000 whether s 3.5 or 6 monSchmidt ed him to comment on success rates. He replied that ev ggles. Thus supports A ovation. They want to improve the outcome and reverse eadly se and the li Vproblems it creates. Overall, it puts a demand on the field to impro tcome. Member Smith noted on pa re it talks about parking, it says minor amendmentsaina}I`Abe authorize he Dir mply with the standards of the Land Use Code; is the Board. placing the birector i case? Director Gloss responded yes. Chain irgle asked Deputy CttxrAttom man a general question...he understood the whether there is a e or not that i%e purvie f another entity. He did, however, want to know if there needs to be"some evidentiary resolution to the tenant's right to do what is being proposed. Eckman said he believesCode has provision that allows the Applicant to act with authority of the owner. Attorney for the owner Jim Ringenberg, stated the owner gives permission to the application. Further, Eckman wan ed'to stress that issues raised before the City(e.g. Homeowner covenants or leases) are not the purview of the Boards—they are enforced in the courts. If there was a lease, which he believes there is not, and there was a breach—that enforcement would be handled somewhere else. Member Schmidt asked for clarification—once a use has been approved...couldn't it just roll back to the previously approved use? Staff member Shepard responded no—it's not cumulative. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 15 Member Smith made a motion to approve 1225 Redwood Street— Minor Amendment, #30-02B based on the Findings of Fact on page 6 of the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was appvoved 5:0. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Cameron Gloss, Director David ' ` Chair 1i East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning City Council Hearing December 4 , 2007 Background • Subject Property - 209 E . Skyway . In 1998 housed a small engine repair business in garage , later added attached home and detached warehouse • This use was eventually allowed in County FA Farming zoning as a home occupation use (with no outside storage ) • Since 1999 ( County) owner has requested commercial zoning and continued uses in violation of County zoning including outside storage of vehicles and RV trailers East Skyway Plan Amendment • - zoning ATTACHMENT 7 Background — con 't • Staff involved in numerous discussions with owner on subject property regarding requests for commercial and responding to zoning violations before and after annexation in April 2007 • Staff is prepared to bring this item forward for a decision by City Council now , rather than wait until the South College Plan is completed in 12 months • The adjacent properties to the east including amendments to change from UE to LMN and POL and corresponding zoning are related but less substantive in nature All Ap rr tVNNE Elk - = =. t i at4 s � n . WA, S lll . LOV Lit of F-aft • East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 4 ESNIYJAY DR IP • S41y.. 91 vi,.or 'tJ. 'G/w dr: - t Ii � r HER EN t • - i 1 City of Fan Collinx #19-07 East Skyway Drive N Si[.• Cnnr." r A Existing Commercial to North and West 1_ aryae ran cawa., 3 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning 209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings I mac_ 209 E . Skyway Looking West East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning 209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings - kY 209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning 209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings F Y 209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning 225 E . Skyway - pp Existing Montessori School a. Existing Residential to North and East .r East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning Existing Residential to North and East Undeveloped Open Lands Part of City Owned Property East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 ExistingCity Structure Plan Amendments Designation Ur Proposed Amendments 1 • Commercial , Low Density Mixed ( North. 225 E . Skyway • Density Mixed - Use and retention of Urban Estate on lower portion ) . Claire Court Properties ( Low Density Mixed - Use ) . City owned property Open Lands , Parks and Stream • • • ��a �. CnOhie c 'c _ Lea - - UM f UE 7 M' AN ,rxwacc a. Pa `:r s - LNN Y WxA Sip . - ai wm�«mcr currasmvo a w � 0 o Pa WRFFLD War i raLLn, sr n nbNN[ LW n S Z r ' fSxOiFF UH Lam` o . A 'u^ ! r %x YIM'r lipSITE wni�ani NL �_ r < UE - S a ,. C - E xnr+Mr' [ n UE .Fr� wiNRn. Fn J N lLaa OY a( ' ` wcw AN 'i Irg r LM .a xur�nLo `N . A.LN s«r.xr . iw wrrnt. iN nAINt i� wNrvn ws'%C LN 10"'Y l NO ri LxsnLna PM '�,.„cr an xn<san LkL a UE ary of r rt Collins #19-07 East Skyway Drive Structure Plan " L"g" SNe Context 9 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 C East Skyway Structure Plan Amendment Existing Structure Plan �dtirrWP City of Fan Collins Attachment 2 IL VFM c 010e r G .P Cane W � t � e N Y J w � East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment Proposed Structure Plan City of ron Collins 10 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning City Structure Plan Amendment A. The City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment ; • Intent of Urban Estate designation reflects existing large -lot County parcels zoned Farming • Properties along Skyway do not reflect character of Farming or Urban Estate designations • Properties more in character with both commercial uses in area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north and east City Structure Plan Amendment — 209 E Skyway Dr Commercial Designation — substantive aspect of proposed changes : • Reflects transitional , mixed -use character of area including existing U -Haul and Trucking business on Kelmar Strip to west and north • Existing single -family homes across Skyway • Montessori School to the east • 2 vacant lots abut to south (also appear candidates for future rezoning • South/Southeast — City natural area , Humane Society headquarters , City Transfort facility and large -lot residential in Lynn Acres subdivision East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 IlONRI F _ W .A -KLjfr�. `? �•l� NO jV'J1.WAtL'. DIG 42 ` x�tt� a.. , �. ' -•!lam- 4`•O9 Ir r`iseinux uv' TntL 1.' •� a f a� J cmt 1 7NlpL' . SITE (�. � iK • -. 4Y� Ir Id qF #191,07 East Skyway Drive City of Fan Cu01MI N Larger She Contert A AmendmentCity Structure Plan 0 • E Skyway Dr Commercial Designation — substantive aspect of proposed changes : • Existing small engine repair business and large warehouse buildings and any future new commercial uses can form a transition from existing commercial to the west • Future commercial changes appear likely and would trigger improvements to property such as landscaping , sidewalk , and fencing to meet LUC development standards . • New commercial use and required improvements would enhance the street frontage and appearance on East Skyway � alv of r rt cowM19 12 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning City Structure Plan Amendment — 209 , 225 E Skyway Dr/Claire Ct Low Density Residential Designation — Minor editing of Structure Plan Map : • Low Density Residential designation more appropriate for remaining eastern portion of 209 and 225 E . Skyway than Urban Estate . • Existing Montessori School located between residential • Existing homes on Claire Court already zoned RL • Future development of residential will match existing neighborhood across street and Claire Court area City Structure Plan Amendment — City-Owned Property Open Lands , Parks and Stream Corridors Designation Housekeeping edit to Structure Plan Map : • Parcel purchased by City in 2003 as part of larger open lands acquisition 13 • Originally designation Urban Estate and zoning of Low Density Residential ( RL ) • With public ownership needs to be designated Open Lands , Parks and Stream Corridor and rezoned to ( POL ) East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 6 y � East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment . East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment Proposed Structure Plan �, Existing Structure Plan Existinguina NIEMEN Zoning = Urban • • E . Skyway : Commercial , east • Density Residential 225 E . Skyway : • Low DensityResidential . • lower - • of Urban ary of r rt cow�9 _ ' 14 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning Zoning Comparison Between UE - RL UE : Lot sizes shall be one RL : Density. All half ( '/2 ) acre or larger for development in the Low dwellings that are not Density Residential District clustered in accordance shall have a minimum lot with the standards set area the equivalent of forth in this Division . three ( 3 ) times the total floor area of the building Overall average density but not less than six shall not exceed two (2 ) thousand (6 , 000 ) square dwelling units per net acre . feet . 15 Proposed Rezoning - City Owned Property Existing Zoning — Low Density Residential ( RL) Proposed Rezoning - City Owned property : Public Open Lands ( POL) East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 RL NTM u LLT! Y LIT i o � Ye .F rr4Wh m . P� i ►M I L 0'e 4o RL o<R tl4 V4 .rx I W. cmLMIe 5 le Fum" DR ¢ Pa 2 O O CP k , c g 8 a f vxvW.r tlu - --- - -SITE S u 7 N1 Nr rgyr4, �_. RL POL E. - < Rl Lpm r S — LAW < RL PUMPPro rN ^M SrawEY Nr SOYHLLr � v fJIUtla Ull COR RI bllRl Rn„ I'I pSCAr rR L LIT I Pa - xRor,xcr UE ra' City of Fan Collins # 19-07 East Skyway Drive Zoning Map ri L. inp•r .Site Context Attactmow l J B&OWURN DR _ N ♦,p rFfcr 8 m&2It DERRt DR rR u W u 0 W_ S M. 'r YILY [�R a Y CRLRYLtN Sl It East Skyway Dr. RezoningSEW N Existing Zoning o �, aryae ran cawa., 16 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning air OL East Skyway Dr. Rezoning N Proposed Zoning City of F�fl COIJIMI Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings (A) Consistent with City Plan; • Request for the C , RL and POL zoning districts is consistent with Structure Plan as amended in proposed prior action • Commercial zoning is compatible with existing commercial to west and north along Kelmar Strip and other mixed uses in area • This small extension of commercial will provide a transition between College Ave Kelmar Strip commercial and residential use to the north and east 17 • Change from Urban Estate to Low Density residential is more compatible with the existing residential neighborhood to north and east East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings (B) Proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including subject property; • Changed conditions largely result of development on and around these two subject properties since FA- Farming in 1960s • Area now reflects a more " mixed urban fringe" character than farming or rural character • A change to commercial on a portion of 209 Skyway is warranted given the existing situation on the subject property and mix of uses in area • Proposed Low Density Residential is appropriate to reflect the residential and school development existing along E . Skyway • City purchased open lands triggers a change to Public Open Lands Additional , Optional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings C . Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land18 • As stated above , Urban Estate is not most appropriate zoning between existing commercial and low density residential uses • Proposed amendment for 209 Skyway is compatible with existing commercial area to west , existing residential to north and various uses that make up mixed character to south and east East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning Additional , Optional Considerations 19 for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings ( D ) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to , water, air, noise , storm water management, wildlife , vegetation , wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. • Staff finds no adverse environmental impacts Additional , Optional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. • Proposed amendment results in logical and orderly development pattern by allowing a modest, transitional amount of commercial use on a portion of 209 Skyway adjacent to existing commercial use to west and north • Change from UE to RL simply reflects the existing residential development on and around the subject properties • Change to RL is " Housekeeping" change to create more logical and orderly pattern than current development pattern of UE • Public ownership triggers POL zoning East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning ATTACHMENT 7 AmendmentEast Skyway Plan • Rezoning Recommendation : Planning• Staff recommends adoption of the resolution and ordinance on First Reading & ZoningBoard o October11 • - • 1 to recommend Council notapprove Item 19-07 , with an added comment to consider this request as part of the South College Corridor Plan process -I I M3j 7 7 _ 6 a�man East Skyway Dr Rezoning — East Skyway Dr Rezoning _ Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning rt Cullinn 20 East Skyway Plan Amendment & Rezoning East Skyway Plan 21 Amendment and Rezoning City Council Hearing December 4 , 2007 Cu'ti. . 2F9 Examples of Urban Estate `a r Examples of Urban Estate r RESOLUTION 2007-107 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP PERTAINING TO LAND ALONG SKYWAY DRIVE EAST OF COLLEGE AVENUE WHEREAS,the City has received an application to rezone certain properties located at 209 East Skyway Drive and 225 East Skyway Drive,hereafter referred to as the"East Skyway Rezoing'; and WHEREAS, the rezoning application requests that the subject property be rezoned as follows: Parcel 1,from the Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to the Commercial("C")Zone District Parcel 2, from the Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to the Low Density Residential("RL") Zone District Parcel 3,from the Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to the("RL") Low Density Residential Zone District Parcel 4, from Low Density Residential ("RL") Zone District to the Public Open Lands ("POL") Zone District; and WHEREAS,the Council finds that,while the proposed Skyway Rezoning does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City's Structure Plan Map for that location, it complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the City's Structure Plan; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the Council has determined that the proposed Skyway Rezoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and the City's Structure Plan Map should be amended as shown on Exhibit"A"attached hereto,so that the proposed rezoning will comport with the City's Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, including the City's Structure Plan Map. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Skyway Rezoning. Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals,principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of December, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRUCTURE PLAN `•� Cityof Fort Collins •.•♦ 1 ellin ton �_._______..yi___ _� CR-5tg �� 1 4NMsor M / 287 I Reservoir D_' 1 Fort Collins - -_ J 1 elfin ton GR-56 -- ,1 - i Separator 1 = I rn 1 Cobb Douglas lake La orte + _-- Bellvue 1 .......... anlv -- - -- Lake ; SR-54G CRa52 / Long Fo,w Country-Clubs - — WilloxT rda"mare'Lake Mountain-Vista � - o — \ U 10 m �._._._.._.._. ~ E , \ CSU \l Footh lIs Campus Expansion 7 . �., 5 ,-_I .. _ s- Area . . __-- Mulberry SH-04 Lory State Park Csu (- -� Prospect --- Csu J U , 1 _Drake Timnath } r'\ Fort Cc Ilins - RaservoirL Tim ath Sepa ator Horsetooth \ Mountain Horsetooth — — Park m N \ Timnath -- _ Harmony Fort ollins r'- \ yJ Ti nath - a- _ - Wi dsor �. ti� " _.—..� Se arator Wildflowe t Ex � - —Trilby--- _.._._.... �--� rea r� - wsi creex�_i, se-ao. .— C-ar niter - - SH-392 Fort Collins - Loveland Separator , Winds r 1 C>R=38 Lov land 1 0 0.5 1 Boundaries Districts 0 ITT5iiiiiiiii Miles �+p Industrial District Edaes Corridors Fort Collins GMA � Downtown Distract `��9 n If Community Separator N Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) fr rJ Potential GMA Expansion Community Commercial District Neighborhoods ",44¢d�!!�k � Foothills Poudre River Corritlor rr Other City GMA Commercial Corridor District Urban Estate 'Rdl Rural Lands If Poudre River CrPlanning Area Neighborhood Commercial Center Low Density Mixed-Use Open Lands, Parks, r it Stream Corridors Y _ Adjacent Planning Areas � Campus District Medium Density Mixed-Use Adopted ��JJJ December 4, 2007 `/ City Limits dF Employment District ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2007 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 EAST SKYWAY 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 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: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of Parcel 1 from Urban Estate("UE")Zone District, to"C"Commercial Zone District,Parcel 2 from Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to Low Density Residential("RL")Zone District,Parcel 3 from Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to Low Density Residential ("RL")Zone District and Parcel 4 from Low Density Residential ("RL")Zone District to Public Open Land("POL")Zone District for the following described property in the City known as the East Skyway Rezoning: Parcel 1 A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,City ofFort Collins,Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows; Lot 1,Block 1,excepting the East 120.00 feet(measured at right angle to and parallel with the east line)thereof,of the Plat of Lynn Acres, a Plat of record with the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County. Together with the southerly 40.00 feet of Skyway Drive adjoining the said portion of Lot 1, Block 1. Containing 2.849 acres more or less. Parcel 2 A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian,CityofFort Collins,Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows; The East 120.00 feet(measured at right angle to and parallel with the east line)of Lot 1,Block I of the Plat of Lynn Acres, a Plat of record with the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County. Together with the southerly 40.00 feet of Skyway Drive adjoining the said portion of Lot 1, Block 1. Containing 1.150 acres more or less. Parcel 3 A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian,CityofFort Collins,Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows; The North 377.40 feet(measured at right angle to and parallel with the north line)of Lot 4,Block 1 of the Plat of Lynn Acres,a Plat of record with the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County. Together with the southerly 40.00 feet of Skyway Drive adjoining the said portion of Lot 4, Block 1. Containing 1.917 acres more or less. Parcel 4 A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows; Tract A of the Plat of Huntington Hills West Subdivision, a Plat of record with the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County, together with the westerly half of Kent Avenue adjoining the said Tract A. Containing 1.80 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 properties are 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. 2 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of December, A.D. 2007, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -3-