Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutK & M REZONING ..... 4/25/94 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 17-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 10 considered when there are more details in planning further in the process. It is reasonable to expect a mixed use south of County Road 50 and will support the motion. Member Winfree pointed out setting the zoning does not set exactly what is to go there. Item 27 came in as limited industrial and the present PUD is for all residential use. She encouraged citizen participation. Chair Clements also made statement to be involved early to be a positive process work with. Motion passed 7-0. Item 22. Hillcrest, PUD - Preliminary #6-93 Mr. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, read the staff report with two conditions and recommendations for approval. Ms. Rochelle Stephens, Executive Director Fort Collins Housing Authority. This project is an affordable rental housing development in keeping with the City's objective to expand rental housing opportunities. CDBG dollars are cooperative funding for the project, State of Colorado whole grant fund $423,200 and Fort Collins Housing conventional bank borrowings of $870,000. The Housing Authority Debt Service will be repaid with tenant grant collections. She read a detailed report explaining the details of marketing and qualifications for occupancy. Jim Bragonier - Bragonier Architects - 1913 Seminole Drive - architect consultant for the project. Gave a report on the development, drainage and layout. Member Walker asked about existing homes and access about the streets in the area, parking, cul-de-sac, etc. which were responded to in each area of concern by Mr. Bragonier. Citizen input was requested by Chair Clements; there was none. Member Strom had more questions for the parking areas with regard to landscaping and the turn around. Mr. Bragonier said they were under Poudre Fire Authority for minimum distance and explained the large 35-foot front and backyards but were not planning to landscape the cul-de-sac area. Member Cottier asked about fencing. Mr. Bragonier said it will be 6-foot high, but not on the north. The total lot will be fenced. Member Cottier also asked about Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Waido said school projections will also be considered as part of the preliminary plans. The staff meets with the School District to update the proposed residential developments and passes that information to their school boundary committees to deal with capacity. Member Walker asked about the issue of existing neighborhood developments, and other commercial developments to the east, east of Road 9, etc. Mr. Waido explained the IG (General Industrial) zoning that is in place presently to the east, a portion of Anheuser-Busch, stating that the master plan calls for multi -family and single family in other portions of the area, a shopping center and business services, etc. There may be a 3-5 acre convenience center with some retail planned. The southern area is still in a T- transition zone with a few parcels not annexed to the City. Member Cottier asked for a response to the suggestion of moving the BP designation to the and the IP to the east. It would seem that this layout would minimize the impact to the residential neighbors and the eastern border consistent with the existing IG zoning for Anheuser-Busch. Mr. Waido reminded the Board and audience that all of the proposed zoning has PUD conditions attached and through process the land uses will be made compatible with surrounding land uses or potential uses. He believed the IP zoning would be reasonable near the intersection, realizing single family residential would not likely locate there. Mr. Ward said the IP zoning with this site was chosen over BP because that zoning precludes residential uses. The intersection is not desirable for residential use. He thought it would not be a good use of land to have residential east of Summitview under an ODP according to City policy. The Anheuser-Busch to the east has 80-acres of the area will be a major detention pond and open space for mitigation of the land uses. The land use decisions will be made when the ODP stage is reached. Member Pontane moved to accept the K and M Company Rezoning. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Strom summarized that there will be several opportunities for the citizens to participate in the planning process and encouraged them to watch for signage on the property, letters of notification of neighborhood meetings. Public input will be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 8 Board. If the preliminary plan is approved, the final step of the process is a final plan, requiring a public hearing in front of the Board. When the final decision is made, it is in terms of the detail planning of the property. Mr. Waido responded to a question raised by Chair Clements regarding the requirement of zoning on T-transition parcels. He said that the City Code makes requirement to designate zoning not the State. The districts requested are analyzed by staff in compliance with the City Land Use Policies. He went into detail of the zoning and policies by staff for this particular property. He summarized by saying it was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall mix land uses are the driving policies which are being used staff to recommend approval of this particular zoning pattern. Chair Clements pointed out there were many comments from the citizens regarding the industrial area, possible elimination of the industrial area, configuration of the mix, etc., and asked Mr. Waido to comment. Mr. Waido addressed the question of using the IL zoning as used in Waterglen, Item 27. There are 160 acres of IL property and no industrial use is proposed within the development. The property immediately to the north of the eastern half of the property is zoned IG with a PUD condition. He discussed in further detail differences in zoning. There are no immediate development plans at this point in time. The proposed juxtaposition of these zones seems logical from a planning perspective and it is only when there is a real, live proposal would the appropriateness of the land use at that site, be determined. Chair Clements asked about auto traffic access, four -lane arterials, etc., in and through the property in questions. Mr. Waido said Timberline Road is a major capital improvements project approved by the voters of the city when a 1/4 cent sales tax was approved as part of the Choices 195 Program. The extension of Timberline is a reality in the 1995 arena if necessary funds are available. A traffic study will be required, road improvements would be required as developments proceeds. Each project will be subject to off -site street ordinance, and any provision in the Urban Growth Area agreement dealing with roads. As developments proceeds, roads will be improved and traffic studies will determine what off -site improvements need tc be made. Chair Clements asked about school projections for the development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 7 Chair Clements opened questions t rezoning, what it entails, when t System (LDGS) comes in, when the considered and when they might be applicant. o Mr. Waido with the question of he Land Development Guidance neighbors input will be able to begin working with the Mr. Waido said the property is currently zoned T-transition and under the City Code no development proposal is allowed to be submitted under that zone. It is essentially a holding zone until some ultimate zone is contemplated. Zoning in the City of Fort Collins does not necessarily mean the same as most other communities, particularly those with a PUD condition attached, requiring the utilization of the LDGS. While the zoning district sets some expectations for use of the property, those uses are not guaranteed even though a portion of this property may be zoned IP for industrial uses, a proposal for an industry on that property would have to withstand the merits of criteria of the LDGS. If it passes that criteria and is accepted by the Board, with input, then the proposed use could approved. The same applies to the Planned Business Park (BP) as well as the residential zone (RLP). These would also have to come through the LDGS process, with a public hearing and reviewed against the criteria and eventual decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. There are no guarantees with the types of uses or the densities on any particular parcel. After a two months, the City is required to take the property out of the T-transition zone and place it into one or more zones. Any zoning district that has a PUD condition, the underlying zoning district, and the definition of that zoning district become mute, and the proposed land use on the property must stand on its own merits and be reviewed again under the LDGS. Mr. Waido indicated that the development process occurs in three stages: (1) an Overall Development Plan (ODP) where the entire property is planned as a unit and specific uses, or anticipated uses, densities, square footages of those uses will be placed on a plan. It takes a pubic hearing and is subject to public review which involves the Planning and Zoning Board. After the general nature of land uses are established, then a preliminary plan can be submitted. Often times a preliminary plan on a phase of the property comes through with the Overall Development Plan. (2) The preliminary plan is much more detailed, it begins to show the street layouts, the types of uses, the size of lots, landscaping, architectural characteristics are all part of a preliminary plan which is scrutinized at neighborhood meetings and a public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 6 CITIZEN INPIIT Gil Wilson - (did not sign in) - He wanted to know where it lined up with Adriel Hills and Mt. Vista Drive. (Planner Waido pointed out the locations on the map). Mr. Wilson referred to Item 27, zoned Limited Industrial, that was similar to this area. He thought that it wasn't logical to duplicate another industrial area close to a heavily populated residential area. He requested a change with the type of zoning because of the similarity to Item 27. Myrtle Housel - resides in Adriel Hills and County resident - She reported that the residential area was completely surrounded by agricultural land, she wondered what industrial development would be appropriate for this area. James Beattie - resident of Chesapeake that joins Adriel Hills - His concern was the configuration of the proposed mix and location of the industrial zoning to the eastern boundary, and the Dlanned business across from Summitview Road and bring the resiaential plan from west to east, from single-family to multi- family. Some of the planners have conceived the possibility of an extension of Timberline to intersect this property with service facilities on the righthand (east) of the extension and not impact the residential area. He affirmed the zoning of mixed uses, but requested the above uses. Karen Ridder - 1000 N. Cree - She had a major concern with the industrial planning so close to the existing residential area and stated her opposition to the plans for it. Eric Spanier - 1807 Westover Ct. - Chesapeake Subdivision - His concern was primarily access. He mentioned the consideration of the railroad constraints. He suggested a four -lane artery to relieve congestion of traffic in the area created by the area. He was also concerned with safety. Holly Manley - Delwood Heights Subdivision - Her major concerns were traffic, school enrollments, and Vine Street (ability to handle additional traffic). She was very concerned about the mix right next to the neighborhood and did not believe an industrial park to be consistent at all' and questioned the office park. She requested housing similar to surrounding areas. She was not totally opposed to development and was in favor of well -thought out, logical plans to keep the aesthetic beauty of the area and would like to know further plans for streets. CITIZEN INPIIT CLOSED. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 5 system) with this for their single-family lots and there could be a note on the plat to that effect if it is initiated by the developer. Mr. Olt said that it is a good idea but pointed out that a mandate on a single-family residences would be restrictive and better education can be acquired. He said it could be incorporated into the LDGS and point charts and written into the code in the form of bonus points similar to what has been done for energy conservation and solar orientation. It is possible to explore that possibility but has not been pursued in depth. If the Board so desires, the ordinance could be revised accordingly. Member Cottier said it was just a suggestion and was not proposing it as an amendment but something that should be looked at in the future. Chair Clements asked for citizen participation, but no one responded. Citizen participation was closed. Member Walker continued that this is an excellent opportunity to make a statement to move the community toward water conserving landscapes. He felt examples in the commercial and industrial landscape projects would be setting an example for water conservation with respect to plant materials, etc. He felt the ordinance could state more specifics. Member Fontane recommended approval of the recommendation to City Council for certain amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Chapter 29 (Zoning, Annexation and Development of Land) in regard to the addition of water conservation standards and guidelines for outdoor landscaping and irrigation systems. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1, Member Walker voting in the negative. Item 21. R i M Company Rezoning, W -94. Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation, report and recommendation. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with a PUD and condition. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design represented the applicant; it is taking the property out of T-Transition Zone and placing it in a developable zone. There is no master plan for the site at this time. Under the current LDGS, the multiple zoning becomes somewhat mute because the actual land uses are determined through the PUD process. Underlining zoning does determine expectations for mixed use for the area. a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 2 Member Strom had a minor correction for the minutes of February 28, 1994 on page 16 in the eleventh paragraph to read: 4. There is a desire for double loading parking driveways (it now reads "single loading"). Chair Clements had a conflict of interest on Items 3, 16 and 17 and a member of the audience requested Item 4 be pulled for discussion. Member Klataske moved for approval Items 1 through 19 on the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 3, 41 16 and 17. Member winfree seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Member Strom moved for approval of Items 3, 16 and 17. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0, with Chair Clements abstaining because of conflict of interest. DISCUSSION AGENDA Item 4. Country club Corners PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary. #72- 84D. Brian Ficker - 638 Agape Way - asked if the project had additional anchor stores other than Toddy's and proposed shopette store? He asked if there was any plans for K-Mart or Wal-Mart type stores locating in the northern Fort Collins area? Steve Olt replied that at this point in time, the staff is reviewing two uses, one, Toddy's supermarket grocery store and the other being an Osborne Hardware store. Those are the only two identified uses in proposal at this time. The second question regarding the super -stores located in the south of the community, these developers have the power to identify the sites they want to have and the Planning Staff was not aware of any large stores that wish to locate in Country Club Corners area. Member Cottier moved approval of Country Club Corners PUD, 3rd Filing, Final. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1994 Gerry Norsk, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The April 25, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Clements, Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, Member Fontane, James Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Lloyd Walker. Member Winfree was absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Greg Byrne, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Jim Clark, Tom Shoemaker, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, and Carolyn Worden. IEN Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items. Consent Agenda: Item 1. Minutes of the February 28 and March 7, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board meetings, Item 2. Silver Oaks PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #14-88L, Item 3. Columbine Care Center East PUD - Preliminary & Final, #12-94, Item 4. Country Club Corners PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #72-84D, Item 5. Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Final, #66-93C, Item 6. Greenbriar Village PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #19-93G, Item 7. Prospect II PUD Amended Final, #82-79D, Item 8. Stoneridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #21-92G, Item 9. Best Western Transmission PUD, Lot 1 - Final, #15-93A, Item 10. Bennett Elementary School Site Plan Advisory Review, #13-94. Item 11. O'Dea Elementary School - Site Plan Advisory Review, #14-94, Item 12. Moore Elementary School - Site Plan Advisory Review, #15-94, Item 13. Resolution PZ94-3 Easement Vacation, Item 14. Resolution PZ94-4 Easement Vacation, Item 15. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval, Item 16. Amendment to the Oak -Cottonwood Farm overall Development Plan, #54-87N. Recommendation to Council: Item 18. Robert Shields Annexation and Zoning,. #19-94A and Item 19. Strachan Farm Annexation and Zoning, #18-94. Discussion Agenda: Item 20. Recommendation to City Council for Certain Amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Chapter 29 (Zoning, Annexation and Development of Land) in regard to the Addition of Water Conservation Standards and Guidelines for Outdoor Landscaping and Irrigation Systems, #17-94, Item 21. K & M Rezoning, #17-94, Item 22. Hillcrest PUD - Preliminary, #6- 93A, Item 23. Westbury PUD - Preliminary, #11-94, Item 25. Coventry Subdivision, Filing One - Final, #80-93A, Item 26. Fairbrook PUD - Amended overall Development Plan, #65-82Z, Item 27. Waterglen PUD - Preliminary, #71-93A, Item 28. Referral of an Administrative Change, Lot 25, Paragon Point, #48-91J.