Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVINEYARD REZONING - 2-03 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 10 Member Carpenter still felt like the Board needed that Subarea Plan to make a decision on this. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the concerns he had heard tonight were all compatibility concerns. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the applicant's thought were on a continuance until June. Mr. Karasa replied that they have been waiting years for that Plan to be approved and he felt that it was almost complete and they were more than willing to wait a little longer. Member Colton withdrew his previous motion. Member Carpenter agreed. Member Colton moved to continue this item until the June 19th Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that one thing that has bothered her about the 1-25 Subarea Plan is that she did not think that Council worked off of an aerial so when they were making these changes, etc., she thought they based it on how they wanted it to look on paper. They really did not go out and so to speak "walk the land". When they made the Industrial to buffer the highway from the residential, she did not think they went out there and realized that this was going to change the Industrial that was already out there. She hoped that there was time in a worksession to discuss this if we do feel as though it is an issue to be brought up to Council before they adopt the Plan. It might also be brought up when the Subarea Plan comes before the Board. She thought it was an important issue that should be looked at. We are impacting some businesses out there and we are setting up businesses to move again. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Meyer and Torgerson voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Approved by the Board August 21, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 9 thought that it was amenable to the area and a natural transgression from the highway and light industrial area all the way to the urban area of the County. Member Meyer's concern was that this would be just like people who buy next to the airport and then complain about the noise. They know its there and have been told it is there and they will put their house down and the next thing you know they have nothing but complaints. If Industrial already exists, she was not sure it was compatible with housing. Member Gavaldon thought that the compatibility was weak and it should stay Industrial. Member Colton moved to recommend approval of the Vineyard Rezoning as stated to be rezoned as Urban Estate citing the finding of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Colton recommended approval because he does think it is consistent with the direction that Council has given on the 1-25 Subarea Plan. That is to have a transition from the Interstate and from Industrial and Employment to less dense land uses such as Urban Estate and even less dense into the County. He understands that there are trucks going by there but it did not sound like a huge number of trips. He thought that there were opportunities for buffering and clustering. This is consistent with the two rezonings that were done south of Vine where there is Industrial and Urban Estate. Member Carpenter asked about the 1-25 Subarea Plan and if they could use that. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the Council has not yet approved the Plan and his view of it from a legal perspective is that it does not exist until it has been approved by the City Council. Member Carpenter suggested that this item be continued until the 1-25 Subarea Plan is approved because this is a big piece of that. Member Gavaldon agreed because it would help the Board out more definitively. Chairperson Torgerson commented that in light of the revised staff report the Board does have support for the rezoning independent of the 1-25 Corridor Plan, at least from staff's perspective. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 8 Member Craig asked if there were any residential to the east between this and the ditch. Planner Barkeen showed an aerial photo of the area and pointed out the residential areas and where the Streamside and Peterson annexation areas were located. Member Craig said that Planner Barkeen has stated in his presentation earlier that we had a lot of criteria for new Industrial that comes in next to residential, but we don't have very much for residential coming in against Industrial. If we expanded the Industrial, then that gives staff the opportunity make that buffer instead of us abruptly coming up against Mr. Woodward's business. Member Colton asked about the two annexations that had been done within the last month or so. That was done with Industrial right up next to Urban Estate and the Board did not raise issue at that point in time. He did not see what was different here other than there are some existing development. Planner Barkeen stated that the Streamside and Pederson annexations were zoned Urban Estate and he visually showed the Board their locations just south of Vine Drive. Member Colton stated that outside of some of the compatibility issues, this would be consistent with some of the direction he has heard from Council. Member Craig thought that the difference is that it could be controlled. If it is not there then that is when we could say this is Industrial and you are going to be up against Urban Estate, this is what is expected of you. Mr. Woodward came in with the anticipation that it would be Industrial and has put together a business that is very Industrial and wants to expand his Industrial business, and we are going to put in Urban Estate next to him and we don't have the criteria to protect his business. That is what concerns her when we get down to compatibility. Member Colton asked the applicant what he had in mind with Urban Estate there and if he thinks it is saleable to people knowing that there is going to be a trucking facility next to it. Mr. Karasa replied that it was an interesting idea to just consider it. He thought that there was proximity to the highway, to shopping areas. There are numerous reasons to put Urban Estate here. There could be clustering and still maintain the open space and the beauty and separate it from the highway. You just pull the housing back a little bit from the Industrial land and make it green. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 7 Planner Barkeen replied that it is in Larimer County and not in the city of Fort Collins. It is mainly agriculture uses, it is very rural. It is all zoned FA-1 in Larimer County. If someone would develop that property, to maximize the density in residential, it would be 1 unit per 2.3 acres. It is lower than what is permitted in the Urban Estate zone district. Member Carpenter was confused about the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report and that it talks about this being consistent with the existing land uses within the area. Planner Barkeen pointed out that there is an existing project to the south of this project called Streamside Development plan within Larimer County. We are in the process of annexing that into the city. There was just completed a Structure Plan Amendment done there to allow them to go to Urban Estate. We are seeing some redevelopment in this area that is consistent with what we are seeing in the rezoning request. Chairperson Torgerson stated that in a lot of cases around Industrial as a buffer we would see MMN and those kinds of uses as opposed to Urban Estate. He was wondering how Urban Estate really fits as a buffer against Industrial given the type of product that they build. Planner Barkeen replied that there was a pretty narrow area upon which to do all these transitions from. Obviously the key is Interstate 25 and that you don't want to have residential up against 1-25. The existing Industrial, staff thinks, works very well for that. To the east is the GMA and we have agreed not to annex beyond that. With the existing County zoning remaining at FA-1, we have not heard anything from Larimer County saying that they would be upzoning anytime soon. There is not a lot of land to work with as far as providing nice smooth transition. Chairperson Torgerson asked if we left this as Industrial, there is a leapfrog development out there. A half to a mile away, there is Urban Estate type development. He was wondering about the rational of creating Urban Estate to buffer the Industrial because it seems like there is an Urban Estate pattern growing in the County towards us anyway. It may be logical to maintain that Industrial zoning and allow the County to grow at us. Planner Barkeen thought that we were missing input from a third party and that would be Larimer County. He thought that they did not have any plans to upzone and thought that they would still allow some of those Urban Estate type of developments to occur in this area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 6 ratio of close to 1:1 of jobs to housing. We are exhausting the supplies at the same time. That begs the question is there a problem with that? Member Craig agreed and that is why she brought up the Anheuser Busch land and if we take that out of the formula, is our job/housing ratio still as close as it shows right now. That is her concern. Member Carpenter found it ironic that they were talking about loss of employment land and at the same time we will be running out of residential land. At some point we will be saying that we are out of everything. She thought that was a much bigger question that has to do with the expansion of the GMA, whether or not we are going to add any kind of land. She was having a hard time applying that to this particular piece, just simply because we appear to running along to the edge of the cliff. She has a problem with looking at running out of employment land, when we are going to ignore if we are running out of residential land. Member Gavaldon agreed with Member Carpenter. He stated that we are in the middle of the City Plan update and he would like that to run its course. He would like the Board to stay focused to the Structure Map and to this rezoning request. Member Colton asked to see any pictures that Planner Barkeen may have of this existing trucking use and how close was it is to this parcel. Planner Barkeen visually showed the Board where the Fort Collins Feed Company was located next to this parcel. Member Colton asked Mr. Woodward how many trucks they ran out on a daily basis. Mr. Woodward replied they have 9 trucks and they would be adding 3 more. Right now they do 22 loads a day out of the Brewery. The trucks are in and out at least twice. Come December 1, they would be doing 32 loads a day out of the Brewery. It just depends on what the Brewery does. He has a day shift and an afternoon shift. The more the Brewery does the more they do. Mr. Woodward also added that they have a very large ditch on their property and they were also concerned with children jumping in the ditch and lawsuits that would come of that. Member Carpenter asked what was to the east of the parcel we are talking about. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 5 Employment uses out here with housing, so the area did not develop as a large, single use employment, industrial and office destination. There has been a lot of talk about the balance of jobs and housing, not so much citywide, but in this area. That approach to the development of this area fizzled out. There was no support from Council or from the public for full-fledged city development out here. Council did however, support the idea of the Urban Estate housing out here as a compromise between ideas for open lands, which was some of the other alternatives for the future out there. There were ideas for full-fledged city development. Both of those had their problems and he sees this as a compromise. It is a lower level of development and a transition to the County. Providing this large lot housing provides a low density housing that some say the city also has a shortage of. Those are more of the reasons that this idea has gotten this far. It was not citywide jobs and housing balance. In addressing the market analysis prediction that land for this type of use, office and industrial will expire in 2015 to 2020. It points out that land for housing will likewise be exhausted in 2020 to 2025. At some point, we have talked about not expanding the city and even if we were there would be a limit as to how far you could expand it. Member Craig wondered if the Anheuser Busch property were to be taken out of the inventory, because we don't know if it will ever be used, would we even have enough land to last from 2015 to 2020. Planner Mapes replied that all the land was added in when the analysis was done. He stated that the shortage we have now and would get worse is the shortage of moderately sized and priced parcels as opposed to the multi -hundred acres that Anheuser Busch owns. Member Craig stated that from a land use issue, this does concern her. People like Mr. Bath who is bringing them jobs that are higher than retail jobs and if we don't appreciate his position and don't give him Industrial land that he can be and expand on, then we are pushing him down the road. Director Gloss wanted to add to Planner Mapes comments. He believed the study that was done for the City Plan update quite sometime ago now, did not include the CSU foothills campus at least to the extent that we now know is the overall plan from CSU. That could play into the Boards decision. Another item that has been talked a lot about the exhausting of the Industrial and Employment land by the year 2020, is there is also a similar finding about residential land. The residential expired about the same time. We are looking at a relatively good Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 4 • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern." These items are optional and may be considered by the Board. The things the Board has to consider is whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or warranted by changed conditions. Member Craig felt it was interesting that on this piece the underlying zoning has been Industrial all along. It was not like they were taking a blank piece of land or a piece of land that was zoned Rural Open Lands. It has been Industrial for years and she would like the Board to take that into consideration even when looking at the Structure Map. To her that was important especially for people like Mr. Bath that moved out there thinking all was right with the world because it was zoned Industrial. Member Craig asked if Planner Barkeen went out and observed the 24/7 business that went on as far as the trucks. Planner Barkeen replied he had not been out there at odd hours of the day to see what is truly going on out there. Just through site visits and site shots has been the only times he has been out there to observe some of the existing Industrial uses out there. Member Craig was concerned about taking 44 acres of Industrial land with good based jobs and turn it into residential. It is a concern right now to try and keep land that we can get base jobs in that give us a wage that people can afford to live in Fort Collins. In the market analysis that was done for the City Plan Update it states that "between 2015 and 2020 the supply of available land to accommodate Industrial and Employment growth will be exhausted". She wondered if staff has the same concern and one we should be looking at before we just start rezoning and getting rid of land that we should be looking at as employment. Clark Mapes, City Planner replied that before he makes any judgements about whether we should or how we should use it, he can tell the Board that the citywide totals that she is referring to is the market analysis for the City Plan Update. This was not done when the discussions and the process of the Subarea Plan were taking place, which led staff to the point where we are supporting this proposal tonight. Citywide totals of the jobs/housing balance are not the reason why the Subarea Plan process and those discussions led to support this change to housing. The idea of including housing in development in this area came up in the discussion originally to balance Industrial and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 3 Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked Planner Barkeen to address compatibility and how that was addressed in the rezoning process. Planner Barkeen replied that the issue of compatibility would take a two step process. We have to look at whether the Urban Estate is truly compatible with the adjacent I, Industrial land. Normally you see a transition of land uses for zoning classifications between Industrial land and residential uses. The other way to address this is through the design process. When an actual Project Development plan is submitted, looking at actual buffers, distances, separation requirements and things of that nature. Our Land Use Code does not really have a lot of guidance when it comes to residential going into Industrial areas. There is a lot of guidance when industrial goes into residential areas as far as setbacks and separation requirements, landscaping and location of buildings. It will be something that will definitely have to be looked at in the Project Development Plan stage to make sure that these uses can be made compatible. Deputy City Attorney Eckman cited what was in the Code. He stated that the Board was being asked to look at a Structure Plan Amendment and in the process of deciding whether a Structure Plan Amendment is appropriate, it is a legislative decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He thought that the Structure Plan Map amendments should not be at dissonance with the Principles and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan or the Visions and Goals. If the Structure Plan Amendment is approved, in rezonings, any proposed rezoning needs to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan or warranted by changed conditions. If the Board approves the Structure Plan amendment it might follow that the rezoning would be appropriate as well because it would be consistent with the Structure Plan Map. There are also other considerations that the Board may examine in a rezoning. The Land Use Code says "in determining whether to recommend approval of any proposed amendment, being an amendment to the zoning map, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: • Whether and the extent of which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land. • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. Norm Karasa, Owner and Applicant of the rezoning request spoke to the Board. He stated that he did not bring any more information than what Planner Barkeen had already presented. As part of his submittal it was pretty clear as to the intent of this application. This piece of property had been submitted on two prior submittals for consideration of being rezoned to residential of one form or the other. It has taken more than two years to get a cohesive plan as to what would be in the best interest for the State of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins as to the nature of the zoning as they foresee it in the future on the 1-25 Corridor. Public Input Steve Woodward, Fort Collins Feed, 1020 Northeast Frontage road gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that they own the property to the west of this property. Back in 1987 they tried to start a business; they handle all the spent grain for the Budweiser Brewery. They tried to purchase 127 acres just two miles east of the Brewery. At that time they had 85 people complain and their complaint was that they were going to endanger 85 species of wildlife and livestock. They then went off of Highway 14 on Butcherblock right off of County Line Road and were going to purchase 863 acres. They had 36 people fight them on that. On the 127 acres they asked for 5 acres to be Industrial and the other 122 acres to be greenland and that was denied. On the 863 acres, 63 acres were already a feedlot and that was also denied. On the requested rezoning there is a lot less green area. Here there are 44 acres with 20 or 30 houses on it and a lot less green area. The Planning and Zoning Board and the people in the industry said that if they would go to an Industrial area, they would not bother them again. Their concern is for the children and the young adults in the area. They are concerned that they are going to be overrun with 18-wheelers all the time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They are also concerned about the problems with theft; they have already had some vandalism and theft with the people in Waterglen. They run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When starting the trucks they have to run from 5 to 7 minutes to warm up. The drivers also have to back up and they blow their horn when they back up and they use a backup horn. When they start forward, they have to blow their horn again for safety reasons. He knows that if horns are blown at 2:00 a.m. people will complain. They are a 24/7 operation and they run all the time. They have no choice. For those reasons, they are against the proposal. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mika] Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Carpenter, Colton Craig, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Barkeen, Mapes and Dodge. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the February 6, (Continued) and February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. #9-03 Halcyon Second Annexation and Zoning. 3. #8-99B Willow Brook, Third Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 4. #2-03 Vineyard Rezoning Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 2 and 3. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Vineyard Rezoning, #2-03 Project Description: Request to rezone a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25. The parcel is 78.6 acres in size and is currently zoned I, Industrial. The proposed rezoning would rezone the eastern 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to Urban Estate residential, the remaining 34.8 acres of land adjacent to 1-25 would remain zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the 1-25 Special Corridor Study on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval