Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDS TO GMA, FOSSIL CREEK COOP. PLAN. AREA - 19-04 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 25 Planner Wray replied that we do joint County Referrals and forward recommendations and they try to adhere to our guidance, but it is not a regulatory framework from our land use recommendation. He thought was Sally recommended before is that the Board would recommend that we work with the County to capture the intent of the employment designation if that is what Council would support to add to their supplemental regulations. Member Schmidt asked if the County had adopted all the 1-25 Design Standards. Planner Wray replied that we have our existing Code and the landscaping standards for commercial projects next to residential and industrial. We have our 1-25 Corridor Standards that talk about sight planning and edge transitions, so we do have some good language in place right now. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. These minutes were approved 3/16/06 by the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 24 Planner Wray replied yes. Member Lingle asked if Windsor was annexed to the interstate Planner Wray replied yes. Member Schmidt asked given some of the designs of the new frontage roads — if that ends up going down is that going to be a problem with splitting some of these properties. Planner Wray replied that was a detail of site planning. There was a street network identified as part of the 1-25 Corridor Project that showed the area that preliminary alignment work was done for the frontage roads. If a specific project came in or a series of them together coordinated, then both the County and the city would have to look at them together to respond to where the roads are proposed and how that is in relationship to the uses on the property. Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council that the Sub Area Plan be adopted consistent with Option 5. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. She could just not go along with turning it into all commercial when we had some employment. She would like to see some employment down in this area as well. She thought Option 2 might be the closest. She would not be supporting Option 5. Member Torgerson felt comfortable recommending this because it is subject to all the additional regulations in 3.9, which are the 1-25 Sub Area Plan regulations and there are a lot of really good standards in there that he believes will promote a good buffer. Chairperson Meyer commented that staff spent a lot of time and personally if this is flawed or not, it is better than nothing and at least the city is forging ahead instead of reacting they are pro active and she thought that was wonderful. Member Schmidt asked to add something about Sally's comment of trying to get the Council to strengthen the IGA with the County so if projects to come in ahead of time that don't have to be annexed they try to have something that more forcefully recommends the use of our standards in any project review. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 23 Chairperson Meyer asked if anyone had spoken to the residents of Mountain Range Shadows. Planner Wray replied he could check on that, he believed the notification area did include them. Member Carpenter commented that she sees what staff is trying to do with making that a buffer, she is concerned as well and what she does not want to happen is the next time this comes in and it is light industrial and it is something that is really inappropriate in that area and she wondered if there was not a better zone or some it could be conditioned so we can make sure that that does not happen. There a lot of uses in employment that really would be inappropriate there and we would be in the position of this does not work but it fits all the criteria. She thought that in making it employment instead of commercial we may be making it worse. Member Craig asked about when staff put in the big chunk of employment, what their thoughts were. Planner Wray replied that thoughts were to have some additional opportunity to get other uses and types of projects in and around the interchange than what commercial would normally allow. Member Craig asked why they have changed their minds. Planner Wray replied that when we looked at the other adopted plans and the designation as an activity center, staff felt that the commercial designation could work here. Based on further discussions, we felt that we wanted to reduce that. Member Craig asked by having a larger piece, you could bring in a larger employer versus little pieces parts. Was that considered at the time and why was it considered not necessary down there. Did we have enough big pieces of employment further north that we don't want to encourage employment along with an activity center. Planner Wray replied it was not so much that in that we recognize that this is the immediate interchange area and if you look at some of our other corridors you have more commercial activity right around the interchange. In looking at the Harmony Corridor, the employment doesn't really begin until you get further separated from the interchange. Member Torgerson asked if all this area was included in the 1-25 Sub Area Plan and therefore subject to the additional standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 22 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Torgerson asked what kind of uses did they see in the employment area that would be the kind of buffer that they would want to see. Planner Wray replied that with the roughly 300 feet staff was envisioning some office buildings and potentially some smaller uses like clinics as part of the primary. There is some room for the 25% of secondary uses, but there is certainly not room there for a large light industrial manufacturing plant within that small strip. Member Torgerson said that all the things he mentioned staff would like to see are allowed in the commercial zone and yet the employment zone introduces things that you would not want to see like light industrial. Are there uses that staff specifically thought would make a good buffer in the employment zone that you could not do in the commercial zone? Planner Wray replied that if there was a large commercial project that went all the way up against the edge of Eagle Ranch Estates, conceivably you could have 150,000 s.f. buildings and those typically would be fronted onto Carpenter Road, since those lots are rectangular, and truck loading and side parking would be on the edge between the two, or the backs of the buildings. Member Torgerson said he thought it would be subject to the compatibility standards of the Code. Planner Wray said we do have our large retail standards and we do have the landscaping standards for trying to buffer and industrial to residential. Staff thought this would add some additional uses in conjunction with pushing some of those other commercial uses further away from the residential. Member Torgerson asked if the commercial or. residential would generate more tax dollars to help fund the interchange improvement. Planner Wray replied that staff did not get into that level of detail. Member Torgerson asked if anyone has looked at the flight pattern of the airport and would it be problematic when it comes to height of buildings. Planner Wray replied that we do know where the flight pattern is now for the large planes and the airport and they generally swing around and fly over the reservoir area and a little north of that down over to the critical area which is further to the west of this area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 21 folks out there can generate sufficient revenue through tax increment financing and so on, through all those mechanisms, then development will happen and development here will pay more than its fair share, it will pay for a great deal of the replacement of the interchange. What we need is an effective public partner, they ask that the city of Fort Collins be that effective partner and designate the entire site as commercial. The closest part of Mr. Prado's property to any of the lots in Eagle Ranch Estates is 600 feet and they think that is a very good buffer, but in addition to that 600 feet they will of course be required to meet Fort Collins Big Box Standards and they have no objections to doing that but they do need the land uses and the city will have the opportunity to review design. Jeff Couch, Team Engineering, 3465 Shallow Pond Drive, stated that he would like to make three points with the Board tonight. He stated that they were opposed to the Structure Plan amendment as presented. They would like to see the employment removed. He represents the VanCleaves who own 40 acres. It is very hard to do anything in a 300 foot strip when you are talking over a quarter of a mile. They felt what was happening was commercial was being buffered from commercial. They are hoping .that the Board approves all commercial. He stated that when they went to the County Commissioners, the County Commissioners realized that certain properties would bear the brunt of the interchange improvements. They asked for two things of city staff, "the requirement that the city of Fort Collins staff negotiate with impacted property owners to develop a certainty that the proposed Structure Plan will accommodate the zoning requests of all property owners". The second "the assurances that the city will be active participants in an effort to provide adequate public facilities on the 1-25 and 392 Interchange and Carpenter Road should be completed". As of this date there have been a couple of meetings with the Transportation Department and they are saying that there are no capital improvements and there is no funding and all they can do is schedule some meetings for us. That does not meet that requirement. He stated that at one time Windsor was going to bond for those improvements with these properties and they were going to dedicate the right-of-way for the frontage roads and it was a 20 million dollar project. At that time Windsor spent $150,000 for the preliminary design and placement of that interchange. That was approved by CDOT. There has been a considerable amount of work to the point with some preliminary plans and work they could build those frontage roads with a lot of the information that is already done. We are way past where Fort Collins is with their Transportation Staff. Fort Collins has no reason for being out there because there is no infrastructure out there. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 20 condition, it is already a problem and there are things that can be done to make it a win/win for everybody. The city can take significant leadership in doing that in this process as one of the starting points, but it also needs to take the time to sit down with the property owners and work on those issues. It is probably through the annexation agreements and encouraging that process that some of these issues about to what this buffer might need to look like and how the transition would work, that is where we best take care of that. We do it through design standards. He thought that trying to put a narrow strip of a different land uses on a piece of property is not necessarily going to accomplish that. The objectives can be stated, the P & Z Board can state that, the City Council can state that and then we move on to another level as we move toward annexation to begin to address that. The key is that the city takes the leadership role and helps form the partnerships so that we do move forward in a positive way. John Barnett, 3200 Greenwood Court, was there representing the property owners at the southwest corner of 1-25 and Highway 392. It is the closest property to Carpenter Road. They have been involved in this process for a considerable amount of time and the Prado family has owned this property for 20 years. They viewed it originally as a long-term investment that would be developed at an appropriate time in the future. As they have owned this land the town of Windsor and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland have grown together around it and the interchange has become much more problematic. None of the landowners have anything to do with the problems created at that interchange and yet that interchange is a major barrier for owners realizing the return on their investment. When the Corridor Plan was developed and adopted in spring of 1995, the intersection was still functioning fairly well and was not a major issue that was brought up at that time. Nothing was done or planned for for the idea that land uses would have to support its future redevelopment. Hence, the mixed use land uses that were designated around it. Everybody realizes that the interchange is broken, but its repair is at least 20 years out. There is no funding for it now or for the foreseeable future, therefore it is going to fall back on a kind of boot strap public/private partnership effort to get it done. The drawing that was shown earlier has within in it a phased redevelopment of that interchange with property owners carrying a significant amount of burden over time. They have got the revenues available in the land in order to pay for that infrastructure. That infrastructure includes development first to the frontage and later relocation of the ramps and finally the. replacement of the overpass over the interstate. The landowners are being asked to take on a tremendous burden and solve a problem that they themselves did not create. They need help from the public sector to do that and part of that help is land use. The original Structure Plan amendment, if that were left in place right now, he could tell you that the interchange would stay exactly the way it is as such time as the public is prepared to do the replacement. If zoning is adequate and the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 19 Member Schmidt asked what level of service the interchange was at. Planner Wary responded that it was at capacity and failing at times. PUBLIC INPUT Joe Carter, Cityscape Urban Design representing Mr. Kurt Dimick who owns 40 acres right at the interchange. Mr. Carter had questions regarding the 300 foot strip and how if functions as the buffer. He said generally they were in agreement with staff that Mr. Dimick's 40 acres should be developable as commercial or employment. They also don't think that coming in with a residential designation adjacent as shown previously would just create the same problem that is already there in creating commercial next to residential. From a tax standpoint we think that we would want to get as much commercial as we possibly could at this intersection for the benefit of the city. It is there preference to go all commercial and they think that through cooperation with staff and smart development practices, you can get the type of buffering that you want. He does not quite understand what the employment zone does for them, certainly it gives them an opportunity to put office in there, but so does commercial. It gives them the ability to do residential, but so does commercial. He did not think that the employment designation is the right way to go either. One of the things that he employment district does, is it also allows for light industrial and is that a better than a big box store? A big box store is not going to be 60 feet high; it is going to be 30 feet high. There are architectural controls in place to allow for articulation in the structure. He thought he needed more information, but did not know if the 300 foot employment zone is the solution. Personally they think it should be all commercial. He also asked if Mountain Range Shadows to the south had been spoken to. Tom Hahn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive, was here representing property interests on the north side of County Road 32 on the west side of 1-25. They certainly don't have any objections to the plan recommendations as presented in that particular area. A couple thoughts and comments that her clients wanted to bring forward in this whole process was the issue was greater than a designation on a map. What is happening is that as the city has begun to want to take charge of the area, influence the area and see that there are some benefits to this particular part of the world being brought into Fort Collins both as an entry area and potential commercial and the advantages that could bring to the city. Several things can be factored in, one is he believes the interest in coming to the city is there if the city is willing to be a partner and do the kind of things that those particular property owners feel are going to work to everyone's best advantage and make it work. It is a very significant cooperative -issue. You have the highway department, you have the town of Windsor, the city of Fort Collins and then all the private property interest on both sides. Obviously there is one very big "gorilla" that is sitting in the room and that is an inefficient interchange that because of its existing Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 18 Planner Wray replied that it would fall under the airport zoning and it generally allows the rural residential within airport zoning and most of the other non residential uses are under special review. Member Craig asked if the reason it was under special review was because it is in the airport zone? Planner Wray replied that the airport zoning covers a large area further to the west and the County identifies special review because it is part of the corridor and part of the airport influence and critical area. Member Craig said the reason she brought this up was because if the County felt that particular parcel needed special review because of a safety factor with the airport, are we being smart turning it into an employment and commercial, when it might be an area that safety wise it would not be wise to do that. Planner Wray responded that the city does not have a regulatory position to restrict a development within the airport influence area. The noise contours from the airport go all the way up north of the reservoir and have a wider designated area as part of the airport influence. The only part that Cameron mentioned that we are looking at a regulatory restriction on development is within the critical area, which is the crash zone on either end of the runway. Member Craig asked if she understood correctly, as staff they felt that that area was not in the critical flight zone, so we are.not really looking at a safety issue. Planner Wray replied no. Member Schmidt asked about improvements to the interchange and had anyone put a pencil to it and if this commercial were to build out at reasonable revenue, did it give us enough to make preliminary improvements or has anyone looked at what the benefits are financially to this. Planner Wray responded that when there is public participation on this item, the Board would get more information on that. Member Schmidt asked if rezoning this commercial it should give us enough income revenue in that area to make improvements. Planner Wray replied that it would help. If you ask CDOT for money right now for interchange improvements, the answer is no. It is on their list of projects, long term list. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 17 One is the County needs to extend the Plan Development Overlay zoning within the GMA and they need to amend the IGA to complete that process. This project submitted prior to this. Member Schmidt asked so technically the GMA has not been expanded at this time because it has not completed all the channels it has to go through. Planner Wray replied that it has gone to both bodies as hearings to agree to the boundary change, but to make it complete, the County needs to extend the Overlay Zoning and amend the IGA. As he understands it, that process is identified for later this fall. Member Lingle asked if the buffer that was being recommended in the preferred alternative is 300 feet wide and how was that number arrived at? When he looks at that strip in scale with the residential lots of Eagle Ranch Estates, it looks so narrow that it would seem like something that would come in that would be employment would be forced to develop in a strip configuration to fit. He was not sure if it was being envisioned that something else would be more clustered and have employment uses within that 300 feet or how was that number arrived at. 4 Planner Wray replied that Eagle Ranch Estates developed as a cluster development and he believed it was a 50/50 cluster where roughly 50% of the area was residual open space and if you look on the east side, you have anywhere from 300 to 600 plus feet as a built in buffer to the existing residential estate project to anything that happens out to the west. Yes it does look narrow on a map, but when you apply that to an existing setback and buffer from the existing residential development, if there were a large retail as part of a commercial project, you would not have the large retail buildings backed up real close to the property line. That would be further to the east and we would get some different buildings and architecture and site planning along that edge. Member Craig asked if that section was left to the original Structure Plan then it would be designated Community Separator and therefore because of what the Board did previously, if it came in, it would be zoned RUL. Is that correct? Planner Wray responded that it is the only rural that come close to the County zoning in that area. Member Craig asked if it was left as the original Structure Map and it came in, even though it is in our GMA, and came into the County to develop, what could they develop in that area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 16 Member Craig responded that her hope would be that within the IGA it could state something to the effect of "because this is in our GMA and so forth, the recommendations of city staff would take precedence over the Land Use Code of the County". So if the County did not have any kind of standards for the employment area and our staff recommends that this is what should be done, then the Planning Commissioners and the County Commissioners could say that the IGA requires that their recommendations supersedes ours. Planner Wray responded that one of the things that staff did do on the north side of the reservoir within the Fossil Creek Plan as a follow-up implementation action, was to identify an agreed upon design and development standards for the Fossil Creek area that the County incorporated — it was initially in the IGA, but ultimately ended up in their Land Use Code as supplementary regulations. Staff could consider some additional recommended supplementary standards for employment, as an example because the County does not have that category for this area, that is similar to what staff was recommending for the East Mulberry Corridor Plan area as a follow-up item for the County to develop some agreed upon design and development standards for the Corridor area. That is still pending for that area. Member Craig felt it was very important because what we are going to run into is we are going to go through the staff meeting and Board meetings and reassure neighbors that this is what is going to happen down there and then because the County has no legal requirement to follow through with this that they can put in what ever they decide they want to. She feels that we are sending out false messages to people. She felt the Board should send to Council some kind of directions that they feel it is very important that either we implement standards that whether they can be put into the IGA, so they are not `pending forever, just like the design standards on the 1-25 Corridor Plan, or a lot of this is not going to develop like we intended. Member Torgerson asked if there were any active project through the County in this area. Planner Wray replied that in the area we are looking at for this item, the only one he is aware of is a residential project. Member Torgerson asked if they would be subject to the regulations that were in place when they submitted. Planner Wray responded that.they are under County review. This project was submitted before the GMA was finalized. He also wanted to clarify that this has gone to City Council and Larimer County Commissioners and they have agreed in concept to the GMA expansion. There are still a few follow-up items to complete that process. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 15 Member Craig asked if the County has anything in their Land Use Code that if the applicant said, "I'm in the County and I want to do it the County's way and there is nothing in the Code that can keep me from doing that", just our comments can't give the commissioners the tools they need to have it developed the way we want it. Planner Wray responded that when staff looked at our Structure Plan Map that is a policy map, it is part of our Comprehensive Plan. They do not have a Land Use Master Plan within our GMA, so they do rely on our guidance for our Land Use Designation. It is at the policy level, we are not talking about required zoning. They do look at their base zoning for a particular project. For these properties in this area, most of these will be eligible for annexation. We have existing city limits on the north side by the reservoir and we can annex across a water body. We are in the process of considering annexation of the regional park, which again .most of these properties on either side of Carpenter Road that either touches the water or the other properties will be eligible for annexation in the near future. Member Craig asked if it was possible through the IGA to put in any kind of beyond guidelines, but give the Commissioners the tools to say "we have to abide by the city because you are in the GMA". Planner Wray replied that one of the things we could look at when we work with the County on a particular project, if it is not eligible for annexation, is to suggest some of the uses as an example that are within our Employment District that the County could add to one of their zone. In this area itself, when he showed the existing. County zoning map, all of this area south of Carpenter Road is within their airport designation, and at this present time, for the most part allows some residential and most of the other uses within the airport are under special review. When we provide our land use direction for a County Referral, it is not a regulatory piece. Member Craig said she understood that and that is why she was curious if through the IGA it could be given more "clout" rather than guidance. We say that we want to take this on and it is going to be an expense for the City to take this on because it is away from the city when it comes to Pofice Services and some of those issues. What she envisions is that it is going to develop out similar to what we ran into on the east side of Mulberry under the County and then we are going to take it in and are going to have to put up with whatever it is that is coming in. What she is trying to put forth here is is there any way this Board, or even herself could recommend to City Council to look at the IGA and try to give it a little more meaning so we don't have to annex in another Mulberry situation. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked in what way would she give it more meaning. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 14 from within the reservoir down south of Carpenter Road, so the existing development pattern and vacant lands in this area continue to be shown as the community separator designation on the Structure Plan and/or Open Lands as associated with the Regional Park on the north side. The existing Structure Plan shows a larger employment designation south of Carpenter Road, north of Mountain Range Shadows and somewhat of a smaller commercial designation along the frontage road; compared to the staff recommendation for an extension of the commercial designation, which staff felt was consistent with the Corridor Plan and the other plans mentioned as far as an activity center and a transition between the rural residential and the activity center. Staff looked at several different land use designations during the public process and we had the existing City Structure Plan Map as a base. Option 2 looked at various refinements of the existing City Structure Plan Map, either extending the commercial all the way to the eastern edge of Eagle Ranch Estates or more of a transition or looking at a larger employment separation between the commercial activity center and Eagle Ranch Estates with Option 4 and Option 5 looked at commercial going all the way. The staff recommendation is consistent with the previously adopted plans recognizing in the interchange areas as an activity center and felt that it was not appropriate to bring the commercial designation all the way out to the edge of the existing estate residential and in fact staff felt that at least a minimal 300 foot transition of employment land use designation which allows for offices, limited commercial and secondary uses a little better quality; site planning and architecture associated with development within the employment category would act as a buffer or transition between these two different uses. A point he wanted to make from the worksession last Friday based on previous staff discussions. This was shown as commercial on an approximately 3.5 acre piece on the south part and staff is recommending that the employment designation is part of that transition between existing residential and Mountain Range Shadows and the commercial activity which is north. Member Craig asked if where staff has designated employment comes in under County and there is a good chance of that because of contiguity in that area, what does the County have that would follow through with our higher standards for that area? Planner Wray responded that there is a County Referral Review of projects that are within our GMA for properties that are not eligible for annexation. Staff reviews those and provide the appropriate land use guidance for the county looking at our Structure Plan Map land use designation. We forward our comments to the County for a project. Staff describes the intent of the Land Use designation and the County as part of that joint process incorporates those comments into their review, but they do look at their existing zoning for their base interpretation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 13 Planner Wray showed a broader map focusing on the Structure Plan on the south side and the area that is being looked at to amend the City Structure Plan Map is immediately on the west side of 1-25 along the portion of the frontage road on the north and south side of Carpenter Road and 1-25 approximately % mile west of I-25. As part of this item, staff is not proposing to change any other part of the City Structure Plan Map further to the west or anything else. The existing Structure Plan Map gave some general guidance on land use designations west of 1-25 and north and south of Carpenter Road. We had an Urban Estate land use designation on part of the peninsula behind some of the existing commercial businesses. Along the frontage road it had a commercial designation on the west side of 1-25 and an employment designation south of Carpenter Road approximately'/2 mile south and then there are some public open lands with a regional park and some areas that the development units have been transferred off as part of the TDU program and then there is a Community Separator designation further to the west south of Carpenter Road. Staff looked at the previously adopted Plans to provide guidance for looking at various alternative land use designations for this area; The Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland adopted in 1995, the Fossil Creek Area Plan, the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan and City Plan, The Corridor Plan had two areas identified as part of that Planning process; immediately adjacent to the interchange area of 1-25 and Carpenter Road, areas 17 and 18, generally described as mixed -use development associated with the interchange and then more rural designation as you go to the west and identifying key natural areas around the reservoir on the north side. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Framework Plan identified the interchange area as an activity center on either side of the interchange and it also identified a street network with a bus route along Carpenter Road previously Highway 392. The Fossil Creek Area Plan identified this immediate area as no change as part of the Framework Plan; we were not suggesting change in the County zoning at that time. The hatched area recommended that if any specific property came forward for development in this area that staff needed to look at it as part of a unified effort to try and coordinate the interchange area in and around the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The Staff Recommendation that came out of this process identifies the Urban Estate on a portion of the peninsula, the commercial along the frontage road on the west side of the interchange extending on the south side and staff recognized an approximately 300 foot transition between the existing Eagle Ranch Estates area and the commercial designation on the east side. This is approximately a 300 foot buffer or transition between the two land uses. The red line depicts the recent decision to expand the GMA Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 2005 Page 12 Project: Recommendation to City Council for a City Structure Plan Map land use designation amendments within the recent expansion of the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, incorporating the former Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), #19-04 Project Description: Request to amend the City Structure Plan map's land use designations for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary amendment incorporating the former Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), and area of approximately 2 and % square miles. Recommendation: Approval Hearing TestimoOther Evidence: Pete Wray, Interim Director of Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that City Council and the Larimer County Commissioners agreed in concept to recent decisions to extend our Growth Management Area south of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area to encompass identified Cooperative Planning Area. City Council has given staff direction to look at properties north and south of Carpenter Road, west of 1-25 and south of the reservoir area to look at better defining the land use designations within the Structure Plan Map. The public process that staff looked at included the previously adopted plans including the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan in 1998, the City Plan Update in 2002 and 2004. Staff has had some public open house meetings, and in June staff went to the Planning and Zoning Board to extend the GMA, and a public hearing in March with City Council. There was a public hearing meeting with the Larimer County Commission in June and July and there were additional public meetings on the land use options in August and a recent meeting with the HOA of Eagle Ranch Estates. . Planner Wray reported that some of the development related issues associated with looking at the land use designations within that area that he talked about are the needs to improve the 1-25 Interchange immediately adjacent to Carpenter Road on the west side, compatibility of future development within the surrounding existing land uses, preservation of open lands as part of the Loveland/Fort Collins Community Separator and mitigation of development impacts on existing wetlands and natural areas. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Judy Meyer Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 490-2172 Phone: (W) 223-1820 Chairperson Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Torgerson, Craig, Schmidt, Lingle, Stockover; Carpenter and Meyer. Staff Present: Wray, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Sommer, Wamhoff, Gloss, Frank and Deines. Citizen Participation: None. Director of Current Planning Pete Wray reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 19th and July 21st,.2005 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ05-12 — Easement Vacation. 3. #33-05 Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan, Nextel Wireless Telecommunications Equipment — Project Development Plan. 4. #2-05A Front Range Baptist Church and Academy Expansion — Project Development Plan. 5. #26-05 Belle Claire, 310 — South College Avenue — Project Development Plan. 6. #36-05 Minatta Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #15-05 Shields Street Lofts (515 South Shields Street) — Project Development Plan. 8. Recommendation to City Council for the Creation of the Rural Lands (RUL) Zoning District and an Amendment to the Land Use Code. 9. Recommendation to City Council to Amend the City Structure Plan Map. Member Craig pulled Item #4, Front Range Baptist Church. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent Agenda minus Items 1 and 4. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.