Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROCKY MOUNTAIN ARCHERY - APU - 21-09 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board June 18, 2009 Page 5 Chair Schmidt asked for confirmation ... the Board would be approving under the unlimited indoor recreational use for archery. If someone wanted to do swimming or soccer, would they have to come in with an amendment? Shepard said a subsequent proprietor would not get the benefit of what this applicant is applying for —the Board would be approving for indoor archery only. If someone wanted to convert to an indoor tennis arena, they would have to come back --most likely as a Major Amendment. Member Stockover asked for clarification —because the LUC section says "unlimited indoor recreation", is it open to any other recreational activity. Shepard asked him to keep in mind this unlimited indoor recreation is not permitted in the zone. The Board is considering permitting it based on the information the applicant has provided. This applicant is proposing indoor archery and a pro shop. All of the impacts related to that in terms of customer usage, parking demand, and number of employees is what staff has analyzed. That proposal is what they took to the neighborhood meeting. Member Lingle told Member Stockover (who was unable to attend the work session) that the Board had posed that very question at the work session and learned that it is limited to an indoor archery range —see recommendations on page 9 of the Staff Report. Chair Schmidt asked the Board how they felt about Type One versus Type Two so when we make a motion we'll have the Board's preference. Lingle and Campana said they were fine with Shepard's recommendation to consider Type One. Member Lingle made a motion to approve the Rocky Mountain Archery — Addition of a Permitted Use # 21-09 adding unlimited indoor recreation as a permitted use for the property at 4518 Innovation Drive for the proposed indoor archery range subject to the PDP being reviewed by an Administrative Hearing Officer as a Type One Review based on the findings of fact and conclusion found on page 9 of the Staff Report. A. Adding the Unlimited Indoor Recreation to the H-C zone is found to comply with the compatibility standards of Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code B. Adding the Unlimited Indoor Recreation is found to comply with the criteria of Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code. C. A neighborhood meeting was held in conjunction with this request and no objections were raised. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Steve Dush, Current Planning Director . Brigitte Schmidt, Chair Planning & Zoning Board June 18, 2009 Page 4 Shepard said what the code change (that goes into effect on July 17) is saying an Addition of Permitted Use has to be in conjunction with a PDP, an ODP (Overall Development Plan), or an Amendment. The change was made "to tighten up" the process just a little. The question of whether that PDP is a Type One or a Type Two would have to be resolved at the time that you make the determination on the Addition of Permitted Use. Shepard said if it's attached to a PDP, we want the Addition of Permitted Use issue settled before the PDP comes to a public hearing so the Board will still have that option at the time of the decision point on the Addition of Permitted Use whether to make it a Type One or a Type Two. He said it just has to be in conjunction with a PDP or an ODP. Chair Schmidt said she was interpreting "in conjunction with" meaning the Board would see it and make a decision about it at the same time. Shepard says what that means is staff wants a "real" application. Staff wants someone to have gone through Conceptual Review and a neighborhood meeting. Otherwise, you fall into that nebulous area that Deputy City Attorney Eckman might describe as simply a Use Variance and that's not what this process is about. This is more an analytical process that is designed to evaluate the impacts of a specific project. Member Lingle noted they would make application at the same time but then staff would track separately what would come to the Board. Shepard said it's very similar to what they allow for a Standalone Modification. Member Carpenter asked what more would have to be done than what this applicant (Rocky Mountain Archery) did. She said they did a neighborhood meeting and provided elevations, etc. What she's a little concerned about is someone having a full PDP submittal before they actually know whether it's a viable project? Shepard said that's a great observation. Shepard said he wished he had as an example a "continuum" from where you've got an idea to where you're ready to submit a PDP. This particular applicant is very far along on that PDP continuum scale. He has a site plan, a landscape plan, architectural elevations, an analysis of trip generation, and traffic public improvements. The biggest issue that remains on this PDP is drainage. He's hired a drainage engineer to work on that. That is going to be the extent of his utility plans. He would be very close and if this were post July 171h (effective day of the Code revision) he would have been able to avail himself of the new process. Member Carpenter said it sounds as if after July 171h, an applicant is going to have gotten to a drainage plan level before knowing if there is a viable project. Shepard said the requirement is the 50% design level for PDP submittal and it is not as extensive as it once was. For drainage that means you basically have to have a horizontal layout —staff needs to know where the water goes, how it's going to get there, and is there enough capacity in the conveyance channels in the detention ponds for all of that to happen. Member Lingle said the applicant has indicated the tournaments they are planning will only occur on Sundays. He's comfortable with that but in the event that would change and parking conflict problems might arise; would that become solely a complaint/zoning enforcement issue? Shepard said yes. Shepard used as an example the Golden Meadows Business Park when a call center was added. Significant parking issues arose when the building converted to a call center. Because of proactive actions on the part of the owner, they went through a series of minor amendments to address that issue. Lingle asked if that was triggered by zoning complaint. Shepard said the applicant in that case was proactive --they came to staff and asked them what they recommended to solve the problem. Shepard said in the Fort Collins Archery case this applicant will probably not wait for complaints. If a parking issue should arise; he'd be looking for a minor amendment or other shared parking arrangements. Shepard said there is a lot of opportunity for off-peak parking. It's in an industrial park, there is public park (Golden Meadows Park) as well as Kruse Elementary school parking Lingle asked if staff was comfortable leaving it the way it is and dealing with that if it becomes an issue. Shepard said yes. Planning & Zoning Board June 18, 2009 Page 3 Board Questions: Chair Schmidt asked if progress had been made in addressing the parking concerns mentioned in your report. King said he's spoken to Grainger's which is a corporate entity. He said it's in their corporate channels so no new information is available right now. Chair Schmidt asked if tournaments were the only time he anticipated a parking problem. She asked how many tournaments would betaking place. King said tournaments take place once every other month and are typically on Sundays. King said a lot of off-street parking would be available at that time. Public Input: None Board Questions: Member Lingle said initially the Staff Report recommended a Type Two review. Is it noted in the Land Use Code (LUC) that way? Shepard said he's not sure it is stated as such in the Code. Shepard said that once the use is deemed permitted, the subsequent Project Development Plan (PDP) does not necessarily have to follow that it's a Type Two. In fact, he's recalling that when they did the small custom lawn mower repair shop at Mulberry & Taft Hill that it came back as a Major Amendment and a Type One. Shepard said he thinks it's optional that the subsequent PDP can be Type One or Type Two. Member Lingle asked if he was comfortable with it being a Type One. Shepard said yes. Initially his thinking was Type Two because "we're still learning our way' with this process and they want to be cautious. But, having met with engineering department staff and the civil engineer retained by the applicant; and recognizing this site is practically fully developed --services are "stubbed", there won't be any traffic mitigation, streets are in it seemed to fall into the Type One category. Chair Schmidt asked if this needed clarification in the motion since his verbal recommendation is different from that made in the Staff Report. Shepard said the Board needs to tell which way they'd like to go because right now it's not in the permitted use list in the HC Zone. We have to assign it as a Type One, a Type Two, or a basic development review (but he's not recommending that.) Member Rollins asked when the Board considers special uses, should they determine at this part of the process whether it's Type One or Type Two. She said that hadn't previously done that —it just seemed to go whatever direction it was d to go. Shepard said we've done about five "addition of permitted uses" and they've all been different. The Whitman request was already a PDP in progress so that naturally becomes a PDP. Simpson Sheet Metal he's pretty sure did not come back to the Board. The workshop and custom small industry on Taft Hill he's pretty sure did not come back to the Board. So either they were Amendments or they were Type Ones. Director Dush said the recent Land Use Code update is now going to require the PDP along with the application so with that we'll have more clarity. In the motion, he suggests they identify it as a Type One. Chair Schmidt said that's something they might want to consider because if they can get everything done to have the permitted use discussion quickly and they are a Type One; that would proceed faster than if they'd have to put everything together for a PDP and a permitted use application all at the same time. Chair Schmidt asked if someone is requesting a permitted use for that area would it always come to the Board or does it go to any of the options just outlined. Shepard said the actual request for the Addition of Permitted Use has to come to the P&Z Board. Schmidt said if has to be tied to a PDP, and then the PDP would also have to come to the Board. She's wondering if that's placing an extra burden on when items might be scheduled. Planning & Zoning Board June 18, 2009 Page 2 Project: Rocky Mountain Archery — 4518 Innovation Drive — Addition of Permitted Use, # 21-09 Project Description: This is a request to add Unlimited Indoor Recreation as an Addition of a Permitted Use for the vacant property at 4518 Innovation Drive in the Harmony Corridor zone district. Specifically, the proposed use is an indoor archery range. As proposed, the request is for an 11,266 square foot building containing an indoor archery range and pro shop. The site is 27,600 square feet in size located within the Golden Meadows Business Park. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor where this is Recommendation: Approval with Unlimited Indoor Recreation being subject to the P.D.P. being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: Chief City Planner Ted Shepard said the proposed additional use is not permitted in the H-C district. The request has been reviewed by the criteria of Sections 1.3.4 and 3.5.1 which address compatibility within the zone district and the surrounding area. A neighborhood meeting was held and a summary is attached in Board members' packets. If approved, the next step would be submittal of a Project Development Plan. In the recommendation portion of the staff report, Shepard said he's recommended approval of adding Unlimited Indoor Recreation as a Permitted Use for 4518 Innovation Drive for the proposed indoor archery range, subject to the P.D.P. being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board as a Type Two review. He's done a little more thinking about that this week and he'd like the Board to consider the use being subject to the Type One administrative review. Applicant's Presentation: Stewart King is proposing an archery range and pro shop at 4518 Innovation Drive. It would require the addition of a permitted use at that location. He's worked closed with both planning and engineering staff to determine if this project is suitable for this location with nothing but positive results from everyone concerned. Fort Collins needs this business to give the local archers (both youth and adults) a venue to practice and compete in their sport. Without this facility, the city would lose their patronage as well as their resulting tax revenue. There has been a facility in town but the owner of that facility is retiring so that leaves a void for a lot of activities the archer community needs. King said the City of Fort Collins Parks & Recreation Department has signed contracts with a youth instructor who would work out of Mr. King's facility. Mr. King himself is the coach for a junior Olympic archery team that has 30 plus members aged 7 to 18. With the existing shop closing due to the owner's retirement, they were left without a facility to practice. That's one of the things prompting him to undertake the project. He said he was available for any questions the Board may have. Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: Staff Present: Dush, Olt, Leavitt, Carney, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. No requests were made to pull items from the consent agenda. 1. Minutes from the May 21, 2009 Planning & Zoning Hearing 2. Centre Avenue Residences Project Development Plan, # 17-09 Member Stockover moved to approve the consent agenda which includes: item # 1 May 21, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes and item # 2 Centre Avenue Residences Project Development Plan. Member Compana seconded the motion. Chair Schmidt reported a memo from staff member Steve Olt dated June 18 regarding requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2 (C ) (1) Safety Considerations of the Land Use Code was sent to the Board after concerns were raised at their work session on June 12. The memo spoke to the Board's concerns about safety and the use of the pedestrian/fire access plaza between the three buildings and its use as beneficial to a residential community targeted toward an older population. Member Lingle said his initial concerns about allowing that connecting drive to be used for more than emergency access has been alleviated by the memo and its analysis. He thinks the solution the applicant is proposing allows much more pedestrian friendly options and he will be supporting it. The motion was approved 7:0. Discussion Items: 3. Rocky Mountain Archery — 4518 Innovation Drive — Addition of Permitted Use, # 21-09