Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST SKYWAY REZONING - 19-07 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & 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 language is deny versus not recommend. Eckman recommended to not approve would be the most straightforward. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board not approve the East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 19-07. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said she'll like to see any rezoning as part of the larger South College Structure Plan work. Member Smith said that while he struggled with it, he believes it should be considered in the larger context. Motion was approved 5:0. Project: Interstate 25 & State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council for acceptM ce of the I- 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related item s,,mcluding amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master StreetPlan:" Recommendation: - _Recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Intelchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City 6T-Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Senior City Planner Pete Wray reported'lhe interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 serves as both the southeastern gateway to Fort Collins and the western gateway to Windsor. The interchange bas 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 CoUins, Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range Metropolitan Plarirting Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have occurred over the past several years in an attempt to address this failing inter rn The irpportance of this interchange from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to e>dsflng and future development, and gateway into both jurisdictions is significant. Although the 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 Kelmar strip starting at the U-Hall property and extending to Trilby. It would separate the commercial and residential zones. Schmidt asked if the right-of-way currently exists. Wray responded no. It would happen as projects come forward —the appropriate dedication would take place then. Schmidt asked if a commercial development was proposed in the Skyway area, would they be the party responsible for the dedication of the street. Wray responded that it would depend on the specifics of the proposal. Chair Lingle asked Wray what is the approximate street frontage for 209 Skyway/RL. Wray responded 60-80 feet. Lingle has a concern about that remaining UE but for a different reason —it is narrow. Because of the street configuration of Boyne Court to Colby Street, if there would be an allowable street coming from Skyway drive to the south, it is likely the development of residential would be limited to one lot on Skyway and a second lot off the south. Wray agreed. There's a potential for two, maybe three lots there. Lingle went further to state —the access would be difficult. What that tells him is there would be pressure in the future to have that area rezoned C and push commercial development further east. He'd rather see it included in the larger UE parcel to the south and used in some sort of cluster development proposal where that narrow strip could be dedicated open space —which would provide more protection from commercial to the residential units to the east. It is a guessing game but it's a walk through on the potential for development in that area. Member Schmidt agreed. She liked to see the rezoning more connected to the UE zone, part of the Structure Plan, and leave some flexibility on how it could be laid out for the future. She understands why the commercial needs to be cleaned up now but she'd like some flexibility for the rest. Member Rollins asked Wray if he'd considered leaving the large building on the west part of the property as UE? Wray responded they did consider that and their findings were the small engine repair business (a large garage) is a part of the home. Rather than split it they thought it would be better to calculate the setback from the edge of the building. Rollins asked if the house, with the small engine repair business, an allowable use in UE. Wray responded yes. Member Schmidt asked if a separate use could be added in the commercial zone. Wray responded that if another use is requested it would trigger a commercial development review. Staff would look at the proposed use and whether an enclosed building is required. Additional improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, fence improvements, and right of way requirements might also be required based on the scope of the 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 POI_ piece POL. 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 line; did the demarcation come from a legal description? Wray said yes. Lingle said it appeared near the eastern edge of the commercial area. Wray reported the line was drawn 20 feet from the existing home to allow for setback In the event the owners wanted to subdivide, it would be compatible with other lot sizes in the area. Chair Lingle said it appears the impact from 209 Skyway would be to the south as opposed to the east. Member Schmidt said she was comfortable with 209 Skyway in C but has reservations with the proposal to rezone property east on Skyway as LMN. The existing zoning is UE, we're changing it to RL but the Structure Plan will be LMN. Her preference would be to leave as UE until the Corridor Plan is completed. Wray said after Phase I of the Southwest Annexation, staff has had a chance to further review the UE zoning (found in rural settings) and think it would be more suitable along the edges. In the larger context, given the mix of uses and what else is on Skyway, LMN would aid in the transition more than UE. Public Input Brian Schumm, 805 Molina, shared his reservations about the migration of commercial zoning to the east. There are reasons the County, and now the City, should give pause to how the area is zoned. The existing Structure Plan seems appropriate —the proposal is a patchwork of zoning —inconsistent with the Structure Plan. If we are going to allow commercial east of the Kelmar strip, then all properties on the east side should have the same opportunity to be commercial. Action now predetermines what will be studied and determined in the Corridor Plan study. Randy Whitman, 209 E. Skyway, noted the previous speaker (Mr. Schumm) is not directly affected by zoning for the area. His business has been approved in the County. The past few years, he's been trying to work with the County and then because of the IGA (intergovernmental agreement,) with the City. What staff member Pete Wray says makes perfect sense —it is commercial south of them in the Larimer Humane Society and Transfort area. If Aran Street does go in, it will provide perfect access for commercial and a nice transition into the neighborhoods. He supports the request to amend the City Plan Structure Plan Map, and to rezone the two properties on East Skyway Drive. Danielel Kanczes, 1560 Blue Spruce, asked if any homes will be torn down? Wray responded this was a proposal to amend the 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 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 and parking lot, with a horse pasture extending behind the school facility. Claire Court is an existing cul-de-sac with nine single family detached houses. This overall item is a recommendation to City Council on a sequence of two actions. The first action is to amend the City Structure Plan map as a Minor Amendment to City Plan under its criteria found in Appendix C. The second action is to then rezone the two properties along Skyway to be consistent with the Structure Plan, under the criteria of Section 2.9(H)(2) and (3) of the Land Use Code. The changes are recommended because the properties along Skyway do not reflect the character of Farming or Urban Estate designations —they are more in character with both commercial uses in the area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north and east. They believe the Commercial designation is a substantive aspect of proposed changes and reflects the transitional, mixed -use character of area including existing U-Haul and Trucking business on Kelmar Strip to the west and north, the existing single-family homes across Skyway, the Montessori School to the east, the two vacant lots that abut to the south (which also appear candidates for future rezoning,) and the properties to the south/southeast: City natural area, Humane Society headquarters, City Transfort facility and large -lot residential in Lynn Acres subdivision. Additionally, future commercial changes appear likely and would trigger improvements to property such as landscaping, sidewalk, fencing and meeting LUC development standards. New commercial use and required improvements would enhance the street frontage and appearance on East Skyway. Staff also believe the Low Density Residential Designation is minor editing of the Structure Plan Map and more appropriate for remaining eastern portion of 209 and 225 E. Skyway than Urban Estate because of the existing Montessori School located between residential, the existing homes on Claire Court already zoned RL, and future development of residential will match the existing neighborhood across the street and the Claire Court area. Staff is recommending this item move forward for a decision by City Council now rather than wait until the South College Corridor Plan is completed in 18 months. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman noted what appeared to be an error on the Structure Plan map, a panhandle extension of UE into the POL zone. Wray responded that error was discovered at the Board's work session and 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 3 cern, he believes, is he thinks the structure is too flat and too big. He believes that impreas(on com m the review of the elevation drawings. He believes with a better understanS[Kj of the complexity 6Nheelements of design, some of his concerns will be allayed. They f dnt to be good neighbors and will it best meeting with their architects to reconfigure. I w ll be a challenge, given the areas for which reduckons might be considered are the bedroomt and bathrooms. His goal, however, is to make the neighbor a and not an opponent of the0oject. Public Input None. Member Schmidt made a motion th& PTanning & Zoning Board ap i e the six modification of standards for 220 E. Olive Street, #27-07, including the two conditions uding the one being the approval of all affect titilities at the time of the review of the P.D.P an at_the time of submittal for P.D. a architectural elevations for the west elevation shall demoTstrate compliance Section 3.5.1(G) — Building Height Review and Section 3.5.1(H) — Land tise_ Transitiort: Member Smith seconded the motion. Matron was approved 5:0. Project: East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 19-07 Project Description: This is a request to amend the City Plan Structure Plan Map, and to rezone two properties on East Skyway Drive, initiated by City staff. The Plan amendment will change the existing land use designation for two properties from Urban Estate to Commercial and Low Density Residential. The rezoning change is as follows: 1. The first property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive and the existing zoning is Urban Estate. The proposed zoning includes a change to Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property, and a change to Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property. 2. The second property is located at 225 East Skyway Drive, with an existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a change to Low Density Residential on the north 1/3 of the property and retains the remaining south 2/3 of the property as Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv, Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Pete Wray 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 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Wetzler Excused Absences: Campana, Stockover Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, Jackson, Leavitt, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Of special note — staff has requested Item # 2, 220 E. Olive Street -Modification of Standards # 27-07 be pulled and an additional condition added (it will be read into the record later.) There were two errors on Item # 3, the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins —the adoption dates for the Timnath Comprehensive Plan was June 2007 and the Loveland Comprehensive Plan was 2005. Item # 4, East Skyway Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment was continued from the September 20'h meeting. Item # 6, 1225 Redwood Street Minor Amendment would normally be an administrative review by staff but because of its potential compatibility issues with the neighborhood, it has been referred to the Board. Citizen participation: None Chair Lingle ask members of the audience and or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. No additional items were moved from the Consent Agenda, Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Discussion Items: 2. 220 E. Olive Street — Modification of Standards, # 27-07 4. East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 5. Interstate 25 —State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan 6. 1225 Redwood Street— Minor Amendment, # 30-02B Member Schmidt moved 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.