Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LANDS REZONING - 55-95C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 11 Member Davidson felt connectivity was going to a problem in the future. Planner Waido replied that the general standard on connectivity is going to be an issue this Board would have to make a decision when a development plan comes before them. Member Davidson voiced his concerns about the widening of Prospect Road. Member Weitkunat recommended approval of the requested zoning districts, since it does comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and also a recommendation to amend the Structure Plan with the changes. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Craig asked for a condition that says that any development, Type I or Type II, come before the P & Z Board for review because of potential impacts. Member Weitkunat and Member Chapman accepted the condition. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Nauta Rezoning, #55-95D Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 4.964 acres located north of East Vine Drive and east of Lemay Avenue from the T, Transition Zoning District to the C, Commercial Zoning District. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the C Zone and approval of the LMN, Low -Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff report with the recommendation of denial of the C Zone and approval of the LMN, Low -Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Ray Nauta, owner of the property gave a history of the property and the zoning. Mr. Nauta stated that he would like to keep the property zoned commercial. Judy Nauta, owner of the property also stated that the property has been commercially used for over 30 years. Mrs. Nauta had concerns about not being able to redevelop the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 10 liability. He wondered if the City would pay for liability insurance should someone get hurt. Public Input Closed Chairperson Bell asked that the liability issue be addressed. Planner Waido replied that the City would ask for the area to be dedicated as a right-of- way, or an easement to the City and the liability issue would be the same as it is throughout the community. Member Weitkunat asked about the LMN zone being in the middle of the property. Planner Waido replied that it provides for an additional mix of housing. Also to provide a buffer between the Urban Estate Zoning and the Employment District further to the east. Member Weitkunat asked about residential development allowed in the E, Employment District and was there a density requirement. Planner Waido replied if there is one, it is not as specific as the LMN Zone. Member Colton was concerned that there was not enough housing in proximity to the E, Employment District and this would cause more traffic in the area. Planner Waido replied that proximity to residential is only one tool that can be used in transportation planning. There are other tools such as alternative transportation that can be encouraged for reducing trips to work. Member Colton suggested that the LMN area be larger. Planner Waido explained that would be difficult because of the street connectivity requirement in the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon asked if this was premature and should it go back for more work. Planner Waido replied that the more work he was referring to is the 1-25 Corridor Sub - Area Plan which is identified in City Plan. Member Davidson asked if this property would come to them for an ODP. Planner Waido replied that is what the Code would require. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 9 Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant questioned Member Craig's participation in the hearing on this item due to the fact that she is in the notification area and has been active on the project. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that the City Charter had been amended with regards to "conflicts of interest." The present Charter, assuming that there is no financial interest, defines a personal interest as, "any interest by reason which an officer or employee would in the judgement of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment, different in kind, from that experienced by the general public." Mr. Ward gave the applicant's presentation. He spoke on the following: • That they requested this zoning hearing because this could not be resolved last March during City Plan. • They felt that the mix of zones requested better addresses the issues more that the old zoning or the current Structure Plan does. • The owner has made substantial contributions to the infrastructure serving Interstate Land and the surrounding area. • They did not see any valid reason why this property should be singled out and be the only very large property in Fort Collins to be severely down -zoned as a result of the new City Plan Zoning Code. • They feel their request is consistent with past planning, is consistent, as staff has concluded, with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and is fair when considered in relation to the way the other properties in the 1-25 corridor have been handled. • There are no current development plans, they are just looking for a level playing field with other properties in the area. • The applicant does support the staff recommendation of this zoning. Member Craig asked about residents in Boxelder Estates purchasing property along the eastern portion of the property. Mr. Ward replied that the purchaser of the property was the Cooper Slough Green Belt Association. It represents a buffer from development. It is included in the Urban Estate Zoning. Public Input Ben Bedan, Member of the Cooper Slough Association stated that he was there because of the concern at the neighborhood meeting that the city wanted to put bicycle/pedestrian lanes across that small open space, which brings up the issue of 0 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 8 Member Colton commented that he has concerns about the existing condition on that site and that they should be aware of it. Chairperson Bell concurred and wanted the comments regarding their concerns about the condition of the property forwarded to Council. Member Davidson commented that his concern is that this was a dangerous situation where someone can get a building permit and build within the County, then get annexed into the city after the fact when it is in the Urban Growth Area to begin with. He felt that both should happen simultaneously and both should have to come into the city or stay in the county. Not half and half. Member Colton felt this was unusual and that he was frustrated with the whole process. He did not know where the lack of trust came from, but he felt the applicant or the previous owner was trying to get around what City Plan was supposed to do, regardless of the assurances that they are getting. Chairperson Bell concurred and added and urged the neighborhoods to be strongly involved in this. She hoped that we could have a car dealership on College Avenue that sets a standard of excellence rather than the same old thing. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Interstate Lands Rezoning, #55-95C Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 121.8 acres located north of Prospect Road and west of 1-25 from the T, Transition Zoning District to the following districts: UE, Urban Estate (2.0 acres), LMN, Low -Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres), and E, Employment (104.1 acres). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested districts. Staff also recommends approval of a change to the City Structure Plan map designating a portion of the Interstate Lands property an employment district. Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Waido reviewed the Structure Plan Map for the Board Planner Waido stated that the focus of the staff report is the T, Transition Area, but the focus should be the whole 191 acres including the C, Commercial and the UE, Urban Estates area also.