Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRAILHEAD ANNEXATION & ZONING - 43-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 34 Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would not support the motion and stated agreement with Member Carpenter. He added that there are changed conditions on the site and staff is stating the LMN does make sense, though they are concerned about the land balance. The Code criteria for approving or denying this do not include anything about AB developing the property. The motion was approved 4-3 with Members Carpenter, Meyer, and Torgerson voting in the negative. Project: Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 Project Description: Request to annex and zone 2.18 acres located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of Laporte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single family residence (with house and barn) and is in the FA Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairperson Torgerson excused himself because of a conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Meyer. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation stating that staff was recommending approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. He stated that the property is eligible for annexation by virtue of the Irish Second Annexation along West Vine Drive, which was a flag pole annexation that was done several years ago to enable the city to annex Irish Elementary. Planner Olt displayed the zoning map and pointed out the properties in yellow around the Adrian property that are in the city and are in the LMN zoning district and also what was still in Larimer County. Planner Olt displayed the Structure Plan map that was adopted by the city in 1997 and stated that the property to be discussed tonight is designated as Low Density, Mixed Use Residential. The requested zoning that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 33 Member Craig stated that she was not comfortable in believing that AB would sell the employment land. Member Carpenter stated that that is a completely separate problem and that the applicant has really been caught up in something outside their control with these issues. These things have nothing to do with the applicant's request. Member Meyer stated agreement with Member Craig but asked what would happen to the employment land when the storm drainage had to go there. Member Gavaldon asked what the staff recommendation was based on. Planner Barkeen replied that it was based on the current Mountain Vista Plan. He stated that he did not see any change in conditions that would warrant the rezoning. Ms. Corman wanted to remind the Board that the land swap proposed by the applicant is equitable and would provide a buffer to the residential area and railroad access to the employment area. Immediate City and economic benefits are being lost with this development not starting. Member Gavaldon moved for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, #43-02, with initial zoning to E — Employment, and denial of the amendments to the Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan and Structure Plan, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Carpenter stated that she would not support the motion and believed that the potential land swap was fair. Member Schmidt stated that the trade, acreage -wise, might be close to fair, but if AB decides not to do anything with that property, it is a landlocked piece of employment because it has no access. If it comes together in a whole package with AB, it would be a good situation. However, as a piecemeal thing, it does not seem to solve the problem. Most of the reasons this would be a good LMN piece would also apply to an employment zone. Member Lingle stated that, in addition to preserving the City's inventory of Employment land, it also protects the Sub -Area Plan and its concepts with the residential being adjacent to the community commercial area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 32 regional detention. The discussions are on -going as to whether or not that will work. The new Mountain Vista Plan has not been finalized. Member Carpenter asked if the revised Mountain Vista Plan would show this property as LMN. Planner Wray replied that that is what is shown on the plan to date and stated that staff does understand the applicant's reasons for wanting this to be LMN. However, prior to this development proposal, staff was comfortable with the Mountain Vista Plan as it was. Mr. Wray added that staff is concerned about the potential loss of Employment land in the northeast part of town. Member Lingle asked if staff would support a requested rezoning to LMN of this piece if all the other issues were worked out. Planner Wray replied that they would. Member Craig stated concern about having a single land owner for the entire piece. Planner Wray replied that there are a little over 1,000 acres of buildable employment land within the GMA. Anheuser Busch makes up about 47% of that inventory. AB is primarily concerned with residential compatibility with the industrial brewery operations. Member Craig asked if AB would be willing, in the 10 or 15 year time frame, to sell some of their land for employment uses rather than hold on to it for a buffer. Planner Wray did not want to speak on behalf of AB but stated that he thought they would be willing to consider selling some of the land to uses that would support their existing operations. Ms. Toll, attorney for AB, stated that AB does not oppose the ultimate rezoning of its property; they would just like to see the stormwater issues resolved prior to the rezoning. She stated that AB is working with staff to get those issues resolved. Member Craig stated that her concern was whether or not AB was willing to market the land. Ms. Toll replied that she did not have an answer for that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 31 employment, beyond the bypass. Additionally, the Master Street Plan does show an interchange at Vine and 1-25. Member Carpenter stated that the land trade mentioned by Ms. Ripley seems to be fair and it makes more sense to have the employment located by other employment and have this property in with the housing near Waterglen. Member Craig stated that the difference between putting the employment on the north side of the railroad track versus the south side is that when the Mountain Vista Plan was done, LMN was put on the north side of the railroad track so that it would work as a buffer in a neighborhood around the community commercial. Getting an at -grade crossing at a railroad is very difficult. The thought was to put employment down at Vine where you can get the connection to College and you can the connection into the neighborhoods to the south. Moving it over to the other side of the railroad tracks would make access more difficult. Ms. Ripley stated that the current Mountain Vista proposed plan shows this area as LMN. Making it LMN now, ahead of the plan being done, does not compromise that plan in any way. This site would not develop as Employment any sooner than any of the AB land would. Member Gavaldon stated that this site should stay E because of the railroad crossing and the associated danger. Member Carpenter stated that they are re -doing the Mountain Vista Plan to zone this property LMN. Pete Wray, Advance Planner, stated that staff does not want the property rezoned to LMN for a few reasons. The property was zoned E because it had access to an arterial, the Master Street Plan showed an interchange with frontage road access, the potential truck route, and other reasons. Though it is true that certain conditions have changed, the market could change to support employment here at any time. A change of zoning cannot be supported until we see how it all fits in with the rest of the picture in the revised Mountain Vista Plan. Staff is optimistic that the stormwater issues can be dealt with. Member Lingle asked Planner Wray to address staff's position on the possible proposed land swap. Planner Wray stated that the applicant was the first person to propose this idea and look at the property currently zoned LMN as a possible location for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 30 Chairperson Torgerson stated that if the Board were to look at the applicable criteria for zoning and annexation, he would support approval of the project. Attorney Eckman stated that the Board should decide, based on the language of the Code, found in Division 2.9. It states that "any amendment to the zoning map involving the zoning of less than 640 acres of land shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the Council only if the proposed amendment is: a) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or; b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhoods surrounding and including the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan, as it stands now, would recommend E — Employment but the zoning change could be supported if the Board found evidence to support "b" above. Member Schmidt noted that there was no comparison made between the economic benefits of this site being employment versus residential. Based only on construction, the benefits would apply to both situations, though the time scenario may be shorter with residential uses. She stated that she was not sure she felt comfortable declaring a change in conditions to rezone this piece. Member Craig asked Chairperson Torgerson to clarify his statement about the change in conditions in the area. Chairperson Torgerson replied that the truck bypass probably warranted an employment site here and a truck bypass is now not feasible due to an amendment passed by voters. The site has changed also because of the possibility of the interchange not happening. It seems that access would be very difficult for employers. Member Schmidt noted that Mr. Crumb was just describing how easy it would be for residents to get to the employment areas. Member Craig stated that it would be nice to have employment near Waterglen rather than having those residents worry about how they are going to get to employment. She stated that her biggest concern with the job -housing balance is that when the analyses are put together, they use the Anheuser Busch employment land as part of the equation and we don't know when or if that land is going to be used for employment. We cannot use this land in the calculations for available employment land. There were several reasons for making this land Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 29 were three reasons for designating the parcel as Employment on the Structure Plan. First, CDOT had originally indicated that there would be an interchange at Vine and 1-25 and they are now stating that they do not know when or ever it will occur. In addition, Vine Drive was originally projected to be a truck route and that is no longer a viable option in this community. The third reason is that the property is bisected by a railroad track. Initially, it was thought that the railroad could be accessed with a spur but it seems that was probably never possible and is definitely not possible now because of the irrigation canal that runs parallel to the railroad track. The canal does provide a nice buffer to a residential use. Ms. Ripley noted that this site is almost completely surrounded by LMN properties and is really an isolated Employment zone. Ms. Ripley stated that in order to help resolve the issue of E-zoned land remaining in balance, her client is willing to make a land trade to change the zoning to E of a 67-acre piece of land that is currently zoned LMN, if the Trailhead property could be zoned LMN. This would make the net loss of E zone about 23 acres. Ken Crumb, applicant and owner, gave his testimony to the Board. He noted that the City has cited economic reasons for not wanting this property to be zoned LMN. He stated that his proposed project will provide significant employment opportunities during the time it is being built. He introduced Rhonda Corman, of UNC, to make a statement regarding the economic impact of this project. Ms. Corman stated that she did an economic impact analysis on this property, with use as a residential project. She found that the construction phase benefits would outweigh costs and stated that it makes sense, in the immediate run, to capture these revenues. The induced and secondary effects get even larger in the 10-year outlook. Mr. Crumb stated that this site is located minutes from the main employment centers of Fort Collins and is very conveniently located in terms of travel to workplace. In addition, a child-care facility has also been planned for the site. Public Input Jessica Toll, with the Fagre & Benson (?) law firm, 1700 Lincoln Street, Denver, 80203, gave her testimony to the Board, on behalf of Anheuser-Busch. She stated only that AB did not want zoning to change on any of its property. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked if the item should be continued for further staff information. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 28 Project: Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, Mountain Vista Plan Amendment and Structure Plan Amendment, File #43-02 Project Description: Request to annex and zone approximately 91.25 acres of land located along the north side of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen Subdivision. The project is located within the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan. The proposed zoning is LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Both the Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan and the Structure Plan designate this property as E — Employment, and this is the zoning designation recommended by staff. Amendments to the Mountain Vista Plan and Structure Plan accompany the annexation and zoning request. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, File #43-02 with initial zoning to the E — Employment Zone District and denial the requested Mountain Vista Sub -Area and Structure Plan Amendments. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning with initial zoning to the E — Employment Zone District and denial of the requested Mountain Vista Sub -Area and Structure Plan Amendments. He noted that the property gained its contiguity from the adjacent Waterglen Subdivision and also from land to the south of Vine Drive. This parcel is zoned for Employment uses on both the Structure Plan and Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan. Planner Barkeen noted that not zoning this property as E — Employment would result in a net loss of just over 90 acres of Employment -designated land in the City. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, gave the applicant's presentation, on behalf of Ken Crumb with Vista Ventures. She noted that Mr. Crumb also developed Waterglen and the hope is that the development of this piece of property will prevent Waterglen from becoming an isolated residential area. It seemed there Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Lingle, Craig, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Barkeen, Shepard, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 17, 2002, June 5, August 21, October 16, and November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-04 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-05 — Easement Dedication. 4. Resolution PZ04-06 — Easement Dedication. 5. #54-87AH Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club Expansion — Major Amendment. 6. #1-04 Harmony Farm — Second Annexation & Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #20-03 Prospect/1-25 — Overall Development Plan. 8. #36-961 Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Major Amendment. 9. #36-96J Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Project Development Plan. 10. Fall 2003 Land Use Code — Remanded Item from City Council. 11.#43-02 Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning. 12442-03 Adrian — Annexation and Zoning. Marion Jeffrey, 4620 Player Drive Pulled Item 5, Sam's Club Expansion for discussion.