Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVINEYARD REZONING - 2-03 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 26 The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Gavaldon and Torgerson voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Approved by the Board February 19, 2004. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 25 but there are areas all over the Subarea Plan where there is Urban Estate up against Industrial. In fact there are areas all over the city and most of them have worked. He thought there needed to be a buffer and he thinks that the Board should go ahead and approve this because it is consistent with the Subarea Plan. Member Colton moved to recommend approval of the Vineyard Rezoning. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion. He felt there are compatibility issues. He felt that it would be easier to buffer into the County. He wants to see this stay Industrial because there is a canal there and the potential for risk. He would hate to see the industrial owner put up barbwire and stuff like that. He thought that keeping this industrial is the right thing to do. Member Craig was going to support the motion. She has two issues. One issue is when the Subarea Plan did come before this Board, we had a chance to address it then and we did not for whatever reason. One was that they were cut off before we could get into all the issues. Another is that we just did not bring it up. She felt that would have been the appropriate place to look at leaving it industrial and that is when that message should have been sent to Council. We did not do that. She thinks that it is "imperative" that we put other things aside as a Board and sit down at worksession and really get serious about getting some criteria. It is not only are we going to have trouble with this piece of property, but as the Mulberry property comes in that was changed from industrial to residential we are going to keep running into this. She felt that it seriously needs to be addressed because it is not fair for industrial businesses to always look over their shoulder because we might change some zoning. They are our base jobs and we want to keep them. The second concern she has is that Mr. Ferrin did not know anything about the I- 25 Subarea Plan and yet he lives right there on Vine Drive. For whatever reason she does not know, but she would appreciate if staff would get in contact with Mr. Ferrin so he can understand how this came about. Chairperson Torgerson would not be supporting the motion even though he did support the Subarea Plan. The criteria that we are judging this by asks if it is compatible with surrounding land uses and given our current code it is not. We don't have anything in the code to make it compatible. He would support a code amendment to address the issue. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 24 the type of buffering needed. The issue here is that we would typically not condition the approval on a cluster development coming in. It would only be if the property owner "chose" to do a cluster development. Chairperson Torgerson felt that there is a large hole in our code. It was curious as to why they would not pursue a law. It was almost like they want residential to drive industrial uses out of the city. He was sort of reluctant to approve a residential use change next to an industrial for fear that it would cause them to be forced out. Deputy City Attorney stated that the dilemma is that the Board and City Council have approved the 1-25 Plan. The 1-25 Plan calls for this to be Urban Estate which is different than Waterglen. Here we are now with this dilemma and do we think this is good planning? If we don't why did we approve the 1-25 Plan and it is a difficult decision for the Board. The zoning needs to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and the problem with that is the 1-25 Plan is now part of the Comprehensive Plan and it calls for this zoning. Member Craig stated that in going over the minutes of April 17th it bothers her that at that time it was asked of staff to start looking into or bringing it up at worksession the discussion of criteria. She agreed with Mr. Eckman that we are backed into a corner because the Board said that the Subarea Plan is o.k. and the Board said that the UE zoning was o.k. She thought that the Board also felt very strongly about the fact that we wanted some kind of criteria to protect the existing industrial. She feels that it fell through the cracks and is disappointed that it wasn't followed through with. That was back in April and here we are in August and nothing has been done to address it. She doesn't know how it can be remedied because the 1-25 Plan was adopted. On the other hand she wondered it there was something that could be put into the code before a project comes before the Board on this piece of property. Director Gloss replied that that specific topic has been added to be addressed in the fall Land Use Code changes. The second reading for those changes would be in December. Member Colton understood that there are some concerns with compatibility, but if we leave this all industrial then we are going to have compatibility issues with the FA-1 in the county as it develops in low -density housing. He thought that there is going to a conflict one way or the other. Frankly the Board had the chance to talk about this when we talked about the Subarea Plan but just went right through the Plan and approved it when there were some concerns to be addressed. He thought that at this point in time, he did not support everything about the Plan, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 23 manufacturing on Timberline Road. He would anticipate that the same thing will happen with this project. Chairperson Torgerson asked that at present is there nothing in our Code that would protect the existing industrial use. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that you could anticipate that neighbors will be complaining. We do have a noise ordinance in the city that would be insisted on by the neighbors to be enforced against the trucking operation if the noise left the site of the trucking operation. Director Gloss added that we do have some design standards, that call for some discretion on staffs part, on the design of land use transitions where you have very different land use categories right next to each other. Although if you read through those sections, it is generally geared toward the opposite condition where you are adding an industrial use next to residential areas as opposed to the condition that we have here tonight. It does give some latitude in terms of how that transition is made. It does not give a set horizontal distance. We have some things in the language regarding scale, form, materials and colors. Also some of the operational things like lighting and how it is handled in the transition area. Director Gloss addressed the comment this evening regarding lighting. He stated that we require cut-off fixtures and there is a specific amount of lighting that can be provided on the site. There is no light trespass onto adjacent property. If lighting was to be added to the existing industrial use, it would have to abide by the city standards, so there would be no glare and light trespass. There would be some regulations to that affect. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that it was reported in the memo he sent that the City Council and the Health and Safety Committee decided not to pursue a law that would protect industrial or high intensity uses from residential uses that move to it. That could be done, in fact the provision that Director Gloss was referring to could be strengthened so it would protect better, the existing uses which have compatibility problems with residential uses. It would take the Council's willingness to change the Land Use Code to do that. Director Gloss stated that with the Urban Estate Zoning would give the property the opportunity to cluster the development. That type of design would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board. Two units per acre would be the maximum density, and they can cluster. It would be the Board's discretion whether they have done it in a way that protects the natural features and does Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 22 Ken Crumb, 802 Waterglen Drive and owner of approximately 150 acres to the west and adjacent to Waterglen. He has set through numerous hours of debate regarding the 1-25 Subarea Plan and he believes that the dollar amount was about $300,000 to bring that Plan forward. A lot of professional time went into the Plan from both staff and consultants. He believed that the city has adopted and supported a good Plan. It is important that as the Plan develops it develops appropriately. He was here tonight to support the staff's recommendation on this property as it relates to the Subarea Plan. If appropriate buffering is used, it is a legitimate concern with industrial and residential, that he would support the Plan. Public Input Closed Member Schmidt asked about the property previously being an elk ranch. She was just wondering if this were to be residential, would there be a chronic wasting disease on this property. Citizen Woodward responded that the elk on this property and a year and a half ago the Fish and Game Department came and destroyed them. Member Gavaldon asked for Planner Barkeen to review the buffering standards. Planner Barkeen replied that the adjacent industrial owner indicated that he would likely put up barbwire if a residential project would go in. That is possible in the industrial zone district, barbwire is permitted. Staff would certainly like to work with the adjacent property owner if a project is submitted to come up with some buffers between the two uses to minimize the noise impacts that may be affected on this new residential area. Also to come up with some ways to discourage children from going on to the property. Perhaps there would be some techniques as to where sidewalks are located, where some fencing may go to discourage people from crossing the ditch. Those are things that we would look at when staff does actually get a site plan that we can review. Chairperson Torgerson asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to summarize a memo that he had written regarding buffering when residential moves in next to industrial. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that it was a different project, but again it was a neighboring industrial and the question was whether or not there was any law that protected the existing industrial. He found in the State Law an agricultural protection provision, but it does not extend to the industrial use here which is a trucking operation. So you can expect conflicts between the residential and the industrial uses. We had the same experience with the pipe Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 21 City Council did adopt the Subarea Plan, which this rezoning request is now in compliance with that adopted Subarea Plan. He stated that there has been some neighborhood opposition to this rezoning. An adjacent owner of industrial property next to this rezoning is raising compatibility questions Public Input. Steve Woodward, Fort Collins Feed, 1020 NE Frontage Road spoke to the Board about his concerns. His property adjoins this property and he has an industrial property. He has concerns with the 18-wheel trucks that run on Vine Drive, his property and trucks being vandalized and children's safety if they find their way onto his property. He stated that when they put these houses in, he is going to put in lighting because he is going to make sure his trucks are safe. His safety concerns will cause him to ask for a very high fence and even barb wire because he does not want anything to happen to one of his trucks or one of his trucks to run over a child. Mr. Woodward addressed the noise of his trucks. His secretaries complain about the noise when the trucks are idling out front. You can hear the trucks backing up with an alert noise. The trucks then blow a whistle when they are then going to go forward. The trucks have to idle 15 or 20 minutes just to get the air built up. He complained about theft and vandalism and having to pay for it. Mr. Woodward also has concerns with the canal and someone jumping into the canal and that he would be responsible for their death. Dave Ferrin, 4336 East Vine Drive spoke to the Board about his concerns. He stated that the reason he bought out here is because it is or was in the country. The industrial sites sometimes make some noise and sometimes the highway makes noise, but in the last two years there must be about 200 houses build out here where it used to be all field. Just to the south of him, there is a development proposal underway, he went to a couple of meetings but is unaware where it is in the process. All of a sudden he is not going to be in the country anymore. He stated that a lot of the trucking companies use East Vine Drive to get across town from North College and head east on Highway 14. It is a very heavily traveled road by large trucks. The speed limit is 55. He has not seen any plans on what would be proposed, but he assumed that the only place for access would be off of Vine Drive. He was concerned with adding any more traffic. He would like to see before this rezoning is approved any plans for the property and improvements that would be made to Vine Drive. He wondered if people would buy homes on this place and then complain about the industrial uses in the area. Mr. Ferrin was concerned with adding more housing out here and that it might become another Waterglen. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 20 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he had been very comfortab ith the 1 ut was concerned about the constraining factors that led to a request for 160. ted that a compromise could make a successful ject. He stated that he wouI port the motion. Member Colton stated th a was not present f e first modification hearing. He added that it may be a go dea tot ally of all the residents as to whether or not they have a car. Member Carpenter stated that a thought thiswas a good project but that the demographics of the apart nt complex could c ge and result in more cars. She stated that she w d support the motion. Chairperson gerson stated that he thought it was a very a tive project and hoped it Id be pursued. 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 comer 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 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Bob Barkeen explained to the Board that this item was previously heard by the Board on April 17, 2003 and continued until the approval of the 1-25 Subarea Plan. The idea being that we did not want to go ahead and consider this rezoning until it was supported by the 1-25 Subarea Plan. On August 19tn Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal 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 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Colton, Schmidt, Gavaldon, and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Barkeen, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 17 and July 17 (CONTINUED), 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #29-94C Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One, Project Development Plan. 3. #14-03 Golden Meadows Business Park, 2"d Filing, Project Development Plan. Discussion Agenda: 4. #10-03 Timberline Village community Shopping Center, Project Development Plan. 5. #6-03A Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards Recommendation to City Council: 6. #2-03 Vineyard Rezoning. City Planner Ted Shepard informed the Board that they should have three letters, new since worksession, regarding the Christ Fellowship Church project. Member Craig asked that Item #2, Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One Project Development Plan, be pulled from the consent agenda. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Item 1, less the July 17, 2003 Minutes, and 3. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.