Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST SKYWAY REZONING - FIRST READING, CITY COUNCIL - 19-07 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTV UE at time of annexation. This matter has been decided time and time again -- NO COMMERCIAL USE PRIOR TO THE STAFF PROPOSAL TONIGHT. For reasons I do not understand, Staff is trying to do what the property owners have not been able to do after many failed attempts. The staff has become the land planner, land surveyor, and legal team for the Whitman's. I believe this is an inappropriate use of staff resources. Do not approve this rezoning. The Mayor, City Manager and members of council were at the kick off meeting for the South College Corridor Plan. The South College Corridor Plan is long over do and extremely important to the future of the City of Fort Collins. 209 East Skyway is included in the area designated for the plan. Please do not predetermine the outcome of the South College Corridor Plan by rezoning 209 East Skyway tonight, which will then provide justification under the Code for adjacent properties to be rezoned commercial as well. Reject this rezoning before you tonight and let the South College Corridor Plan be a fair and unbiased review of what is in the best interest of the property owners and the City. Bottom line — It makes no sense to do this -- Reject the staff proposal — DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING. home occupation, which is what the property owners asked for. The large steel building is not a commercial building, it is a large steel building for personal storage as requested by the owners at time of permit application, and they signed an affidavit that it would only be used for personal storage. The staff does not like the looks of the building, but it is a typical steel building found on agricultural properties — it is not a COMMERCIAL BUILDING. The business when not an illegal use or a zoning violation is a HOME OCCUPATION, which is what the owners asked for and all that is allowed by current zoning. The commercial character or even industrial character of the property is only because of the long term and extensive zoning violations the owners have committed on this property. Since annexation, Peter Barnes has done a great job in dealing with the zoning violations. The property looks today more like it should — a residence, a home occupation in the residence and a large steel building for personal storage. But I still believe there are zoning violations on the property. Staff states this property has been the subject of much discussion over the last 9 years and for me it has been about l 1 years. The property has never has been viewed as having commercial potential other than by the owner, and Staff s position has changed over time from no support, to the 2/3rd support presented tonight. In 1996 when I worked for the developer of Huntington Hills, we were told by City staff that the design of the Skyway extension to College did not need to consider any commercial use east of Kelmar Strip. Then there was a full blown variance hearing at Larimer County that flat out rejected a commercial use on 209 East Skyway, and the City did not participate. Then there was a rezoning hearing that should have been conducted in the City and heard by Council as specified by the IGA with Larimer County, but the staff sent it back to the County where after careful consideration no commercial use was approved by the board of County Commissioners, and yet the staff does not want to honor that decision. Then the property was assigned the initial zoning of I am frustrated by staff s presentation. This is all about 209 East Skyway. But they have made this as confusing as they can. They talk about needing a better transition. The transition that exists is what the staff planned, and moving commercial east only changes the line, not the Staffs perceived problem with transition. This is about rezoning and development, not the home occupation on the property. They mention the bus barn and the animal shelter, but they are across the wetlands on the other side of open space and have no relevance to this discussion. The changes in the area have been to allow a higher density residential east of Kelmar Strip, not commercial as proposed tonight. The staff says UE zoning is no longer appropriate for 209 East Skyway, but then suggests the largest portion of 225 East Skyway remain UE. The Staff has done a great job of confusing the main issue. This is Staff initiated. It involves two housekeeping issues on the open space and Claire Court that do not need to be done right now, and only confuse the main issue of 209 East Skyway. In fact, the real significance of Claire Court is that it set the precedent for higher density residential, NOT COMMERCIAL east of the existing Kelmar strip. 225 East Skyway (the Montessori school) does not need to be addressed because under UE zoning it is a legal and conforming use that does not need to be rezoned. The real "meat" of tonight's debate is the proposal for 209 East Skyway which P&Z determined to be flawed. For some unknown reason the staff is trying to rezone Commercial when the property owners have not been able to do that on their own in many, MANY attempts. And the staff has presented a bad plan that should not be approved. What is 209 East Skyway? It is exactly what the property owners asked for it to be, and when they have asked for a change in use to Commercial, it always has been denied. It is zoned UE as it was planned to be as long as I can remember. It is not a commercial business from a land use perspective, it is only approved to be a 12/18/07 PASS OUT E-MAIL 12/18/07 comments -- East Skyway Rezoning. Brian Schumm, 5807 Ballina Court Reject the staff proposal — DO NOT approve this rezoning. My interest in this is that my wife and I own two residential properties at 5948 Colby and 5807 Ballina that would be adversely affected by a decision tonight to allow 209 East Skyway to be rezoned commercial. It has been my long held and consistent opinion that commercial zoning should not extend east of Kelmar Strip. My opinion is supported by the history and past land use decisions concerning the properties under this staff proposal. P&Z got it right. P&Z asked tough questions and pointed out the many flaws in the staff proposal before you. It was only after they decided the plan was flawed that they suggested it be looked at again as part of the South College Corridor Plan. The discussion by P&Z was thorough, professional, and identified that the staff proposal makes no sense. The staff plan fell apart under review. Do not approve this rezoning. I have provided to you a copy of the e-mail I sent to Pete Wray concerning issues I had at the neighborhood meeting. There are many important issues in the e-mail that have never been discussed or addressed by Staff. However, P&Z picked up on some of them. rage L of 1 What happens if approved?? VA . uses are allowed without review and men d city standards? Existing residence should be included in RL. Are buildings code compliant for commercial use? 12/17/2007 Yage I of 2 Brian Schumm From: "Brian Schumm" <bschumm1@comcast.net> To: "Pete Wray" <pwray@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:51 PM Subject: #19-07 East Skyway Rezoning neighborhood meeting Here are my comments on the #19-07 East Skyway Rezoning neighborhood 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 very troubled by code compliance. It always slips it's way into the 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??? It's 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? 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. Red tag Zoning violations Affidavit stating the steel building only for personal use. Zoning violations Variance denied Zoning violations Rezoning denied Zoning violations Judgment by the courts to force code compliance Annexation as UE consistent with structure plan City could have done the rezoning in City, but kicked to county. Long history of violations, enforcement, and denial of commercial use 12/17/2007 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of December, A.D. 2007, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2008. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2008. ATTEST: City Clerk -3- Mayor 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, City of Fort 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 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 1, Block 1. Containing 1.150 acres more or less. Parcel A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort 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 of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Cityof 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- 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 CUE") 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, CityofFort 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 40.06 feet of lia CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRUCTURE PLAN fitter Fen fdllm \ l Wellington 1.7____.__—__. . -- F •� rtColllna- f r �JUellln,ton- - T pamtor _•.• � r 1 La Porte 9gwgle —,Bellvu _ Country Clu csu FnoN�lle � Vine li _ camv�,e GMR 9 csu 1 i T-p - ` ---- as ^C5u �� ` IrT •a � - ; - port 04 ulna- 7 t Tlm sob .I Sepal for ���Bo.upppntlaries =an CoA GMA 4l Pote We AEpwron prier CM GMR firRnnrnp Maa fl LhitlLh dpNvmtdvn pAncf 14pCommur.ry C.mm .w Oromd * Cdrr .w Cd . D.I., W p po McOCNrme rY Lmpr InhieTtl D d Neiaheorh000s �'^ EaMte bw 0emrn Mde6 se Eoaes IVumd.,ren sea®.m, [!�] FooNrlle f'j ii 0 05 �ntlMs Comdon "&..w Teel C.ft(T.neru �p5 Lii Pou6e RNS Cemdfr 4p Poutra Res men L E. Psb. -ge�ecentRnnnp Na: ry �fjnpu pMrct lip Medum Oamily EII'l MaeELae Stremrr CanCon Adopted ^/ my uln. dV Em .d , Onnp December 18, 2007 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of December, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 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 CUE") 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. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 15 Member Smith made a motion to approve 1225 Redwood Street — Minor Amendment, # 30-028 based on the Findings of Fad on page 6 of the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was appvoved 5:0. Other Business: None. Mee Can 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 fad there may be a breach of contract? Jim Ringenberg, attorney for the Pruess Family Foundation, said he wan o clarify there is no written lease. He does not think the foundation, who has given significa the community, should be placed in a category alluding to breach. He's also comfortable gi 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 inta assess the addict's condition. There are some addictions that a ry dtfficu to withdraw fro that's the situation, they are referred to another facility. The have a real program p Their program is for addicts whose withdrawal does not requi ical it 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 they need to leave the facility (e.g. an appointment,) they are escorted by til they comp) ram. When they leave the program arrangements are made for fame am up or the scorted to the airport. Member Schmidt asked what was an accurate represe etcavage responded the program is $29,000 whether' 3.5 or 6 mo mid him to comment on success rates. He replied that a ggles. Th supports irwvation. They want to improve the outcome and reverse eadly se and the I` ' roblems it creates. Overall, it puts a demand on the field to impro come. Member Smith noted on pa re it talks about parking, it says minor amendments.ma " ",authorize he D mply with the standards of the Land Use Code; Is the Board p``acing bi ctor case? Director Gloss responded yes. Chan a asked Deputy Attom an a general question... he understood the whether there is a (ease or not that is 'e�pu f another entity. He did, however, want to know if there needs to bees evidentiary resolution to the tenant's right to do what is being proposed. Eckman said he believes. Code has rovision that allows the Applicant to act with authority of the owner. Attorney for the Jim7tret enberg, stated the owner gives permission to the application. Further, Eckman wan • s 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 tht3re 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 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 2417. 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 Wet der asked if they could slip away —take a break from6*. program is completely voluntary and at a fairly significant cost to tprogram, arrangements are made with family members to pick th(for out-0f--state clients.) If would be rare that they would slip aaccess, the staff/dient ratio, the program objectives. If they leaprogram, there would be an interview to see if the program .� would be a problem for them or others. Wet der asked h easy would it be Vetcavage noted the they want to leave the y are taken to the airport back given the limited hkome back to the em or if their return and get a drug fix. Petcavage responded it would not, very eastfor a number c because their money is taken from them while there U. are two tat points that monitored, and they are drug tested at entry and during tay to steal away kons, Primarily Member Schmidt noted this is a private facility (not court ordNE clients investing time and money in recovery. It's not a half -way houU but rather a rePetcavage agreed. If neighbors have concerns he offered an open` oiic�r—letheir concerns and given the clients confidentiality and H1PPA constraints, ' lrk flood. Member Schmidt asked how much traffic did theA�, expects 82 clients at capaciLe and holidays only. They be involved more as et re Chair Lingle asked if the said they would be starting mix. Chair Lmoe noted the am """ "lent i ly late from rvafto this? Shepar pond revio use (as cr?j are)) was not re to what's bei "'; roposed. Member Schmid what facility. Shepard sa're ar a group home, and acn`Fi� Public Input to Io ""` ' ' _ and family. Petcavage and arra a week in advance for Sundays given Sunday to be 6 or 7 visitors. Family will be local, regional or national. Petcavage and referrals grow they expect a national d to a change of use. He asked for clarification us minor amendment (from Wing Shadow to current This amendment is changing it from its current use the difference between a rehab program and a large group care ined differently in the Land Use Code. Wing Shadow was a school, offices; this use Is defined as a long tens care facility. 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 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'existino parking will remain. The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located at the northwest comer of CoigbMteet and Redwood Street The property is zoned Community Commercial — North Colleiff The proposed land use, Intermediate Health Care Facilit1 Community Commercial, North College zone district. The P.D.P. as a whole complies with the applicable, , 14 The Land Use Code is silent on most of the ope40tron al cl Health Care Facility. The applicant's pledge ta from the neighborhood is found to be them. active a collaborate on solving neighborhood compatibil Staff recommends approval. Chair Lingle asked Shepard N from his revid use. Shepard said that intensification is a to intensification of use to a prior like facility (V% included a school and its use followed the sc in a group home. It is likely_ d more fi Worth Living. Lingle notlimits agreed. m. a 1 Member Schmidt asked, "Vtl"`. is neighborhood lsjV the no an electrica it would in the C-C-N, 310p tandards. lstics dfftoeffnediate basis fives 3matic meth ich to arise. Intensification of its' existing Sggo tecc1F traffic. Even comparing . g Shadow's program which y had approximately 20 youth than what is expectedwith A Life building standards. Shepard Food?" Shepard replied the closest south and west is vacant land. To the east is Appil len Petcavag a reps tative of a group of Colorado businessmen whose goal is to cre profit res dents g reha program. Statistics show that in Colorado one in ten people have a d Sth hol adds It is to intent of the owners to put a dent in the problem. 1225 Redwood fiurposes n very little needs to be done internally except to update the fire suppression The history oa is: 1985 New Begs s Alcohol &Drug Recovery Center • 1993 Jacob Ce99r, 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: • DetoxAvithdrawal • Life Skills courses • One-on-one counseling Planning rl< 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 1-251SH392 Interchange Improvement Plant shows only three thru lanes. He wondered if we were locking ourselves Into something too narrow for CDOTs ultimate plan for 1-25 as seen so far from their lane expansion from Decono to Hwy 66. Jackson said COOT 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 something that wouldn't work later with COOT's planning. Jackson approving tonight is a recommendation to more forward. Either C be addressed in the final design of the interchange. A recomme c preclude either COOT (Federal Highway Administration appro pt would include a more fine grain analysis before design worm 6 Member Schmidt wanted to commend the work of all tt_MSe involved in Member Smith said it's a fairly complex project but supporting it. g ourselves to at the Board is determination would forward does not Tonally the 1601 It's a great p�ii and he'll be Chair Lingle said his concerns about bridg sign meeting the ' .,berm needs of the region had been relieved. IL Member Wetzler says is.a long needed and e ' Ing Member Schmidt made a at the Pla Zonln rd recommend approval of the Interstate 25 & State Hiub21ill. rchange proveme Ian. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motlol�� Minor Amendment. # 30-028 This Is ferral , a Minor Amendment to convert the existing facility at 1225 RedwocWtreet into a supervised residential program specializing in voluntary drug an cohol rehabilitation. The existing building contains 20,500 square feet. rcel is 5.5 acres, located at the northwest comer of Conifer Street kkagPiood Street and zoned Community Commercial — North College, Recommendation: Hearin 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 10 recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 251SH 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. Ahl Member Schmidt asked if on the west'side the buffers meet the was from roads. Schmidt said yes —road buffering from the wetl to the west. Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt responded it r. on the wetlands. It's based on the size and value of the wetia d! an actual environmental ecological study is done we're just Because of development on the southeast side of Swed e that area so right now we're proposing a 100 foot buff m the Member Schmidt said it seems the roads meander throLIN placement or will the layout of the frontage roads determinLI alignment on the west side —the three frontage road option, - development. Ideally they will coordinate ral property g There may even be an interim Improvemen a final Member Smith asked Wray to describe how specifically interested in why the southeast I Highway 392 to pickt mily res for land uses (C & Ethe in On the west —there a ountai Area is residential.ast dadrar be mixed use reside wndards. Wray asked N it On moving the frontage roads kandthe et depending abitat. Until value. rbance in rids. Will develop merit drive their Jev loped. Wray responded final be addressed as part of VaLon both the NW and SW side. cs fully rebuilt. center me to be defined — to CR 5 and south to State ray res ed that they were primarily looking that wou contribute to be costs. shadows and south of the Growth Management Lsicte) there is vacant land that could potentially Member S f the d be a pViint fees —residential properties assessed a special di ee y a be benefiting from the interchange improvements. Wray respon in funding op an a property tax district with a mill levy was being considered all to College on st a os' of Windsor on the east side. It would involve a lot more people a Itiple jurisdicti It wot4 also be a lot more controversial. Some would say that's a more equita proach sin a regional facility. Chair Lingle ask re the mmendation is coming from for the bridge being 4 versus 6 lanes. Where is that decisi mi m, what is the data, how long Is the life span? Interim Transportation Di do Jackson said the analysis for the 4 lane bridge is directly related to the recently completed 1-25 vironmental 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 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 dk match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to twenty-year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction frontage roads and landscaping is approximately $22 million. T three combination -funding scenarios were identified: Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and in es for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years, an i ct fee Public Improvement Fee (PIF). No municipal or othV mE scenario. IML Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnershks and includes firu' the NFRMPO ($1.2 million — future allocate nd the municil Collins ($1 million); a lower special assess C landc sunsets In 10 years; a PIF; and a property n dow Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the b VA en rg funding from Scenario 2 an i inded props district special assessment on CAC land Ifiat sunset In the future, additio ' funAllbx,sources such COOT, NF acould be used to � plemencitizens. Futu►€ sour will be'IW.to further ne improvert�as implerr Critical Action are: • Acceptth a funding scenarios ad bonds over a nge bridge, ramps, d feasible strategy, assess'" — and property tax on the ' and a ort is assumwhis support from COOT ($2.0 million), f Windsor ($1 million) and Fort qhlLefflloped land only) that kaand includes all municipal a mill levy. There Is also a small years and a PIF. I existirig.assumptions) may become available through teglonal'. Mnsportation Authority. These public funds to sources, reducing the burden on private uld still require a private match and therefore the still be required. While the Plan does not have a xl that one or a combination of these funding scenarios i package to support the cost of the interchange • Amend the I co i in partnership • Request just n 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 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 intergovemmenta,6&preement (IGA) for the purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land us:tZaRhange (see attached IGA). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was fonicipalities to work cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconsis interchange. The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to imp er interchange. Key objectives included: • Identify Corridor Activity Center with supporting I use • Coordinate with COOT on EIS Process on pre imp alte • Develop aftemative funding mechanisms to prc Identify supporting frontage road and local street d • Develop action strategies to implement improvemen Plan Process w, Existing conditions are: • Interchange currently operating at a faiiin ' oLservi • Area largely undeveloped • Failing interchange reduces developmen pot", al. • Regionally importa esources anapopen space • Area serves as tewa indsor, southeast Fort C • Expected to ional t hub. • The Corridor Acts nter AC) includes co fnercia Natural to the go directly by. employment and residential. 1�OQ to 300 foot eiof the oa natural features. . �� 50 foot buffer is recommend*0,etlands not adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. ry: r'W?' i�"'Tw� • A bttfer of 1,32t) feetis -propoprotect bald eagle winter roosting areas as defined by Colorado Department ofllVildlife (COOW.) Transportation pfarf,�,gpsign induces: • 1-25/SH 397l rndge wide completely reconstructed. • Layout will follk.,' ' tight diamond' configuration per North 1-25 Draft EIS. • Construction wilt include: bridge replacement, ramps widening of SH 392 to be 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 aftemative transportation options. 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. A& Member Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if the motion la age is deny versus not recommend. Eckman recommended to not approve would be the aiglk6ightforward. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning rove the East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # Y; ber Ro onded the motion. Member Schmidt said she'll like to see any work. Member Smith said that while he struggled with it, he context. %bl Motion was approved 5:0. Project: Interstate�25-& State Project Description: js a request for a of the larger South Plan Id be considered in the larger 392 InterEhange Improvement Plan n to City Council for acceptance of the Plan and related items, including i Master Street Plan. Recommefid[btion to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 1 n;re r�m��ange tmprvement Plan and related 'items, including amendments to the City CoiliAk., ti'star Street Plan. Senior City Planner Pete1`i"y reported the 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 has 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 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 —manly 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 sekemercial and residential zones. Schmidt asked if the right-of-way currently exisnded no. It would Z--for-the happen as projects come forward —the appropriate dedication wohen. Schmidt asked if a commercial development was proposed in the Skyway area, we party responsible dedication of the street. Wray responded that it would deafics of the proposal. Chair Lin a ed NVray what is the approximate street responded 6XJ20 feet. Lingle has a concern about tha narrow. Bec4u f the street configuration of Boyne allowable coming from Skyway drive to the sort would be limited tc one lot on Skyway and a second lot potential for two, maybe three lots there. Lingle went further to state —the access be difficult. pressure in the future to have that area re nd push He'd rather see it included in the larger UE p • development proposal where that narrow strip uld more protection from commercial to the residen I un' walk through on the potential.f�,d�evelopment in ea. 4e fo%.209 Sk L. Wray raining UE but fora ent reason —it is to Colby Street, if they Id an likely development o ential is so g ray agrees. rre s a Wh t tells him is there would be com development further east uth and us :Iris me sort of cluster led operdpace—which would provide > is a guessing game but it's a Member Schmidt agr�She like YD see the rez . g more connected to the UE zone, part of the Structure Plan, and lea "some flew lity on how it d e laid out for the future. She understands why the commercial nu bs cleaned up now but d like some flexibility for the rest. Member Rolray if conside " leaving the large building on the west part of the property ? onde did consider that and their findings were the small engine repair iness (a large ) is a of a home. Rather than split it they thought it would be belt ulate the sett the' . e of the building. Rollins asked if the house, with the small en pair business, al use use in UE. Wray responded yes. Member SchNgutter, ee to use could be added in the commercial zone. Wray responded that if anothewould trigger a commercial development review. Staff would look at the proposedan enclosed building is required. Additional improvements such as sidewalk, curmprovements, and right of way requirements might also be required based on theposed 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 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 f e; did the demarcation come from a legal description? Wray said yes. Lingle said it appeared�r a 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 'ble with other lot sizes in the area. Chair Lingle said it appears the impact from 209 Skywa�wou o the south as opposed to the east. Member Schmidt said she was comfortable with 209 Sk in C'but has rese o s with the proposal to rezone property east on Skyway as LMN. "e existin zoning is LIE, w"-' ,- changing it to RL but the Structure Plan will be LMN. Her prefers Id be he as UE untiM CCbrridor Plan is completed. Wray said after Phase I of the Southwest Annexation, staff halsQ a chance to further review the UE zoning (found in rural settings) and think itjbi Id be more suita %'J e edges. In the larger context, given the mix of uses and what els kyway, LMN i the transition more than UE.o Public Input Brian Schumm, 805 Moline east. There are reasons The existing Structure r with the Structure Pla . properties on the east side predetermines what will be Randy zoningjffme area. rtts tryi with the Cou City. W ff member Pe 4 Larimer Hu Society and for commercia a nice trai City Plan Structu n Map, Danielel Kanczes, 1 was a proposal to a existing homes. tared his reservati ut the tion of commercial zoning to the uld a pause to how the area is zoned. o _ rand now tNal amss� paaropriatesal is a patchwork of zoning�nconsistent are gF�rcig to allo tuld has the samity east of the Kelmar strip, then all to be commercial. Action now aied,and teetermlorridor Plan study. Kited the previous speaker (Mr. Schumm) is not directly affected by ieenapproved in the County. The past few years, he's been them cruse of the IGA (intergovernmental agreement,) with the ty sa�(s makes perfect sense —it is commercial south of them in the sfort area. If Aran Street does go in, it will provide perfect access n into the neighborhoods. He supports the request to amend the to rezone the two properties on East Skyway Drive. Spruce, asked if any homes will be tom down? Wray responded this Structure Plan map and rezoning —there would not be any demolition of 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 113 of the property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 213 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. Thetwo 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 ands rkigg lot, with a horse pasture extending behind the school facility. Claire Court is an existir de -sac with nine single family detached houses. This overall item is a recommendation to City Council on a is to amend the City Structure Plan map as a Minor Amerx Appendix C. The second action is to then rezone the twgd with the Structure Plan, under the criteria of Section 2 ) The changes are recommended because the properties Farming or Urban Estate designations —they are more in c area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north designation is a substantive aspect of proposed changes character of area including existing U-Haul RMucking north, the existing single-family homes acrosY *-tt vacant lots that abut to the south (which also apes properties to the south/southeast: City natural &ea, facility and large4ot residen§'WJW,.ynn Acres subWilbn and appear likely and would ' ements to p wperty such a meeting LUC develop standa New comme� al use an enhance the street and ap rance on East`§"My. Staff also believe the Low and more a -"06 because of a e;as' Court al —wady zoned RL acrossstreet and the Staff is recontie riding this the South Colfe. Corridor Deputy City Attorney' panhandle extension Board's work session Court ,e of twWaotlons. The first action City Planter its criteria found in s along Sky be consistent 33)) of the Land dWode. 0 not reflect tt� character of with th commercial uses in the t They believe the Commercial the transitional, mixed -use business Im Strip to the west and ie Montesso of to the east, the two es for rezoning,) and the la � eadquarters, City Transfort Ad i ly, future commercial changes s landscaping, sidewalk, fencing and required improvements would d &4De§jgpealon is minor editing of the Structure Plan Map I'POWof 209 and 225 E. Skyway than Urban Estate located between residential, the existing homes on Claire Draent of residential will match the existing neighborhood we forward for a decision by City Council now rather than wait until completed in 18 months. an noted what appeared to be an error on the Structure Plan map, a the POL zone. Wray responded that error was discovered at the I 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 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 condilii`ons including the one being the approval of all affected utilities at the time of the review he 0 .�, and at the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the wes evati II demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G) — Building Height Rev n'dSection Hj — Land Use Transition. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0. A/7 Project: East Skyway Rezoning and Structur!Vjan Amendment, # 19-07 Project Description: This is a request to amend Plan Stru n Map, and to rezone two properties on East Skyv&y Dn led by Ci ff. The Plan amendment will change the existing land uses a two properties from Urban Estat mercial and nsity fie entiai. The rezoning change is as fol e firs rty is located at 209 East Skyway Drive and the existing ning is an Estate. TliGposed zoning includes a change to er n the west 2/3 the property, and a change to Low Density R 1 f the property. _ The d pro ted at 225 East Skyway Drive, with an existing ning an Estate. The proposed zoning is a change to Low Density identi eporth 1/3 of the property and retains the remaining south g;. 2t3v the p as Urban Estate. 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 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 comer of East Olive Street §W Mathews Street. Recommendation: Approval subject to two conditions --one co integrity of underground utilities and at the architectural elevations for the west elevN with Section 3.5.1(G) — Building Height JR6 Use Transition. Ak Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this request is for six i with a pending Project Development Plan located at 220 Eas to development standards in the NeighbodIN19onservation The pending P.D.P. would be a request for comer of Olive and Mathews Streets across The proposal consists of constructing a new fo parking below -grade. The f cry would be a portion of the north fa floor units to the underground pa would m the alt line is also the bou betw a Downt x 140' for a total of 12,6 re f Staff has bee d by ownerha igte' portion the west eleva abort: ight and mass concept roject, his pi e height ar back of 1 .2. Tfid ht ar archi Both the applicant and i and all parties agree to cont preserving the for P.D.P., the rate compliance 3.5.1(H)- Land ne Modifications in conjunction Street. All six Modifications relate .ON-C-B zone district. redevelopm jest at the northwest Thee ng at would be razed. i ng of 14 dwelling units with i back a first three stories except along offer a ption for live -work potential. Access g the west property line. This west property ne, and the N-C-B zone. The lot measures 90' :ing p78MWer to the west at 230 Remington Street The ms with the building achieving a height of four stores along a was unable to attend the public hearing, is concerned St n. While he supports the overall intent and design 0o ms are as foAows: of a building's west elevation could be mitigated Increasing the 1 floor from the third floor. of the building's west elevation could be mitigated with further iment and detail. iral consultant have discussed these issues with the adjoining owners 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 theyd 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 Attachment 6 Council Chairperson: Dave Lingle Vice Chair. Brigitte Schmidt Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Excused Absences: Campana, Stockover Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, Ja,� Cameron Phone: (W) 223-1820 Phone: (W) 491-2579 Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Con d Dis N staff has requested Rem # 2„220 E. Olive Street -Mod' of S additional condition added (it will be read into the record re Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins —the adoption dat the was June 2007 and the Loveland Compre slue Plan was 2 Structure Plan Amendment was continued September 2 Redwood Street Minor Amendment would n n administra of its potential compatibility issues with the ne bo as been Citizen participation: None and )n Agendas. 0111041 note— [ards # 27-07 belpled and an -Q6re two a -_. .-Item-# 3, the Timnath Comprehensive Plan m # 4, East Skyway Rezoning & k,fi,ng,,,ltem # 6, 1225 by staff but because to the Board. Chair Lingle ask me , the aullOnce and or thlaoaid if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. No ad I its re moved fro a Consent Agenda. Consent Age 1. Mi I tern 20, 2007 Pia ning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. a -Mile Plan City rt Collins 2. 22Xrstate et — catio""n of Standards, # 27-07 4. Eaoning Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 5. IntH' y 392 Interchange Improvement Plan 6. 12ree inor Amendment, # 30-02B Member Schmidt mov5d 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. • 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? a Existing residence should be included in RL. i Are building codes compliant for commercial use? Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 3 August 30, 2007 I Are the existing buildings on 209 Skyway compliant w/commercial use standards? c Supports change as proposed c In 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 very troubled by code compliance. It always slips its way into the 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 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'', 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? East Skyway Dr. Proposed Zoning Attachment 4 E SATURN DR E SKYWAY DR 225 E. Skyway Dr. Legend RezoningCity Zoning Low Cen&ty Residential Cpmmemlal Urban Eslate N ® pvwic Open Lantls Parcels Rezone Area N` 0 150 300 600 Feet Ps7 East Skyway Dr. Rezoning Existing Zoning Attachment 3 E SATUn -Dn -' E SKYWAY OR w� aJ City of V Fort Colli Legend City Zoning tnar Density Rasfdeneai Come i M UrWn Estate PUblIC OPen Lands Parcels �Re we Area N\ 0 150 300 600 Feet 209; 225 E Skyway Dr. E. Skyway Dr. UE UE Attachment 2 - E SATURN DR,-_,_�.— DR East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment Proposed Structure Plan a9and parce+s Structure Ptan Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods = Amendment Area it - Commercial Caridor District Open Lands. Parks and Stream Comdor Urban Estate UE 0 150 300 602 Feet F•:., U W 225 209 E.Skyway U E. Skyway Dr. Dr. UE UE Attachment 1 E SATURi4 OR City of Fort Colli East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment Existing Structure Plan Lpend Amendment Area strucouM Plan Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods C Parcels -' Commemiat Corridor District Open Lands. Parks and Stream Corridors Urtam Estate UE 9k 0 150 300 600 Feet December 18, 2007 -7- Item No. 29 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 December 18, 2007 -6- Item No. 29 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 18, 2007 -5- Item No. 29 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 18, 2007 -4- Item No. 29 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(f) 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: 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. r December 18, 2007 -3- Item No. 29 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 18, 2007 -2- Item No. 29 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. y AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL. SUBJECT Items Relating to the East Skyway Rezoning. ITEM NUMBER: 29 A-B DATE: December 18, 2007 STAFF: Pete Wray 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 band 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.