Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREA ANNEXATION AND ZONING 11/25/96 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 64 93C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 20 Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. There was no other business The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 19 appropriate place for this use. He would be supporting the motion. Member Colton would not be supporting the motion. He would like it to go through the public process and that the HB Zoning with a PUD Condition has already set a precedent in the area. He did not see any reason to deviate from that at this point in time. He would support the staff recommendation. Member Davidson would not be supporting the motion, he felt the PUD is the way to go. He thought that if the applicant knew he could get what he wanted in the County, they would not of come to the City to begin with. Chairperson Bell also would not be supporting the motion as is. She also felt that this is a sensitive area and was not sure what the correct land use in this area is. It is a residential area, and in the past has had a lot of input from the surrounding neighbors. Member Weitkunat stated that in looking at this we are dealing with land use. There are two choices and it is a matter of process and she felt that the CL Zoning would work. The motion failed 5-2 with Members Chapman and Weitkunat voting for the CL Zoning District. Member Byrne moved to recommend to City Council for this project the staff recommendation of Highway Business Zoning with a Planned Unit Development Condition. Member Gaveldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Chapman voting in the negative. Member Davidson moved to recommend approval the annexation agreement with the omission of number four from the annexation agreement in regards to the 20 year period they can withdraw from annexation if the zoning approved is CL. Member Chapman seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Weitkunat moved that this property be excluded from the residential neighborhood sign district. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 18 any use -by rights through a CL Zone? Planner Olt replied that all of the dealerships, with maybe the exception of Reynolds Oldsmobile are all PUD's. Director Blanchard added that there is no CL Zoning in the City except for along Riverside Avenue east of College. Member Weitkunat moved to recommend the annexation of the REA property. Member Chapman seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Chapman moved to recommend to City Council that this property be zoned CL - Limited Commercial. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Byrne commented that the area he gets hung up on is that the applicant is trying to minimize the risk in the change in the land use. Land use is a vague notion and to a certain extent that does change with neighborhood input. What may appear to be a reasonable land use, when we do hear more from citizens, may change the Board's feeling about what is the correct land use. He felt the Board tries to be fair and doesn't try to adjust land uses just because they feel like it. They are trying to interpret the rules as they see them in ways they feel appropriate. He will not be supporting the motion because he does not feel they are in a position at this point to establish the land use. The recommendation by staff is the one he will support so we go through the necessary steps to make sure we have identified that it is an appropriate land use. If the applicant can't live with that, they can withdraw, they are free to do that. Member Gaveldon stated he also would not be supporting the motion. In looking at the comparison and discussion, land use is a risk, but the degree of risk varies from the neighbors to the applicant to Planning and Zoning and staff. He believes in the process, its fair, objective, and there is a good process in place. Making this the best development on behalf of the community and the recommendation from staff is appropriate. Member Chapman makes the observation that if the property is not annexed, it will remain in the County and could very well be developed as the automobile sales facility, but without the benefit of review. He also pointed out that South College is an Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 17 of annexation does not have assurance that the desired use will be allowed. The CL Zone clearly states that automobile dealerships are allowed by right in that zone. Member Colton asked if it was zoned CL without a PUD condition, if the project gets appealed, the Board would not get to look at the land use, only if the project meets the LDGS Criteria. The land use would be a given at that point. It would be evaluated for landscaping, parking , and site design elements. Planner Olt added that in the CL Zoning District without a PUD Condition, if it were appealed to the Board, the Board would be looking at the design elements, the land use would be determined. Member Colton asked Mr. Olt, with his knowledge of the existing County Zoning there, what are the design guidelines and criteria that the County has. Would we end up with something unpleasant, or are there some fairly rigorous design review type things at the County. Planner Olt replied that he was not that familiar with the County's process. Director Blanchard added that we all have the feeling that we get better products inside the City because of our review process. We pay attention to neighborhood concerns, the All Development Criteria, and the Guidance System. We also have the opportunity to enhance the development projects. If a project does go forward in the County, it will be referred to the City for our comments at each of the various stages of review. The City does have some opportunity to provide input into the County process. It is advisory and recommendation only. Member Colton asked if the land use was the issue. Planner Olt replied that staff has done extensive evaluations of this site, working with the potential applicant at the time and this site, staff feels, is appropriate for the proposed land use, automobile sales. Director Blanchard added that we want the property in the City and want it to develop in the City. We agree that an auto sales facility is an appropriate land use on this site. The issue is the amenities that can be gained through the process and through review of the Guidance System that are far and above what you get through a use -by -right. Member Weitkunat asked what other dealerships on South College are PUD's and were Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 16 building permit in the County, but that has not been resolved yet. Member Byrne asked Mr. Ward if the PUD Condition is a onerous burden to the applicant. Mr. Ward replied yes it is. Under the current system with the LDGS, the PUD process under the HB Zoning pretty much puts the use at the discretion of the Board. Their understanding of the status of this project is that the only reason to come into the City is if this use is clearly acceptable to the City. If the use is not acceptable, if the City wants to withhold the right to have the discretion to eliminate the use then the applicant is not interested in giving up the current zoning designation that is in the County. To have existing a long list of uses by right and to go from that to you can do a use, but only if it is part of a PUD is essentially a significant down zoning of the property as they see it. Member Chapman asked if the Board recommended that this be accepted in the zoning code of CL, other than going to the PUD, is there a way to get neighborhood input that would provide the mechanisms for mitigation of problems that this might cause without affecting the use by right as an automobile facility. Director Blanchard replied that the method that would occur would be an administrative hearing in front of him. It still is a public hearing and there is still notification, but the hearing is in front of the Planning Director. Member Gaveldon asked Mr. Ward if he was correct in that the current County process is equivalent to the city process of CL designation. Mr. Ward replied that the process is not. As they understand it, the site is zoned, it is developed in the County. The process in the County is to apply for a building permit. The process in the City is to essentially submit virtually the same documents that would be in a PUD. Site and Landscape Plans that would have to meet the LDGS All Development Criteria as well as the Design Guidelines and Standards for all Commercial Development. The process and the public hearing in the Planning Director's office — there is a fair amount of more process and more design restrictions in the CL Zone in the City than in the existing County Zoning. Member Gaveldon asked to compare the CL and the HB with a PUD Condition. It seems to be similar but the CL may have some shorter steps, but still can have the same outcome, input, and direction. He was trying to understand the reluctance of the HB, PUD. He asked Mr. Ward to elaborate. Mr. Ward replied that the distinction is that under the HB, PUD, the applicant at the time Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 15 wide range of rights that they have right now, and put everything in the discretion of the PUD. Mr. Ward stated that the anticipation is that if the City is not comfortable with the CL Zone, that it is unlikely that the annexation will ever be brought to finalization. The question is should the site redevelop in the County under existing zoning, or is it better to develop in the City given the All Development Criteria and the Design Guidelines and Standards for all Commercial Development. Member Chapman asked for clarification of the existing zoning in the County. It is his understanding that the eastern 1/3 of the property is zoned Business, and the western 2/3 is zoned Commercial; and, for the application of a automobile sales facility is that the B, Business Zone would not be applicable to the automobile sales. Mr. Ward stated that was correct. Member Chapman asked, then in effect, if the applicant stays in the County, they would not have the full use of the eastern 1/3 of the property. Mr. Ward replied that they would have the use of it, just not for an automobile dealership. It would be used for any number of retail uses. That is the incentive for coming into the City. In the applicants mind, that is the trade-off for the more extensive City review requirements. Chairperson Bell asked if they could petition the County for a zoning change. Mr. Ward replied that they could request a rezoning at any given time. Director Blanchard commented that to avoid any misunderstanding, there is some question on City staff in terms of the interpretation of the Intergovernmental Agreement about whether they really can proceed with development in the County. It is staffs interpretation that they may not be able to because of some of the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement. He just wants it clear that it has not been resolved among the two staffs yet. He did not want the Board to proceed along with the sense that it is a given, when in fact there are still some questions. Director Blanchard stated that there are some provisions and some statements about the fact that it only applies when there needs to be a decision made by the Board of County Commissioner's and also a statement that provisions of the IGA apply to non- residential building permits as well. It is that interpretation that staff is grappling with right now. it is City staffs impression that they may not just be able to proceed with a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 14 agreement. The Board can make their recommendation taking the annexation agreement and some of its terms into consideration. Chairperson Bell asked why staff is recommending HB Zoning with a PUD condition. Planner Olt replied as requested, the CL Zoning District would allow this as a permitted use, however, it would have to go to a public hearing before the Current Planning Director. In this case it would have to go through a site and landscape plan review, and subsequently to a hearing before the Director, essentially without public input. Staff feels that a project of this nature is best served by actually going through a public input process. The CL Zoning as a permitted use would also be evaluated against the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. As a PUD, it will be evaluated against the All Development Criteria, the appropriate point chart, then would also be required to go through as a minimum, a nine week review process with more substantial public input, and ultimately to the Planning and Zoning Board for a final decision. Staff feels that is more appropriate for this land use on this site and that is why we have recommended the HB Zoning District with a PUD Condition in this area is appropriate. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant stated that the somewhat unusual condition of this site coming before the Board is that this is site in Larimer County that is zoned C Commercial and B, Business. It is platted and it is developed. It is not in the same condition that the vast majority of annexations that come in that are undeveloped and do not have the kind of commercial zoning in place that this project has. Right now the condition is that a very wide range of uses can occur on this site. The entire process is going to the Larimer County Building Department and pulling a building permit for any number of uses. The existing condition on the site is not the same as an undeveloped site. Mr. Ward stated that the owners and the applicants are willing to annex to the City if they can have zoning that is roughly equivalent to the zoning that they have in Larimer County. The trade off is that they would be willing to go through the more extensive City process for a use by right, including the All Development Criteria, and the Design Guidelines and Standards for all Commercial Developments that were adopted by the City last year. The trade off for the applicant is that the specific use anticipated would be allowed in the CL Zone, under the current zoning that use is allowed in the C, Commercial Zone, but would be restricted in the B, Business Zone, which is the College Avenue frontage. The B, Business Zone allows a great number of uses, but not automobile dealerships. Rather than restricting the proposed use away from College Avenue frontage and having to do another auto -related use or retail use in front, the applicants are willing to come into the City, but are not willing to completely give up the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 13 recommendation was not the same as what was requested and that the applicant would still like to stand by their requested zoning district. Planner Olt stated that the applicant has filed an application for the 9.3 acre REA site and they are requesting CL - Limited Commercial zoning with no conditions. Staff at this point is recommending HB - Highway Business with a PUD condition on the property. Planner Olt stated that attached to the petition for annexation is an annexation agreement and there is one item that is very critical to the discussion tonight. In the annexation agreement would have to be exercised by both the applicant and the City prior to City Council making any final decision would allow the applicant to withdraw their annexation petition, disconnect from annexation into the City within 30 days after the effective date of the annexation if Council were to annex the property and should they not be granted the zoning as requested. Planner Olt stated that the critical element of the annexation agreement, and our concern from the staff standpoint, is the paragraph on page 2 of the agreement. Paragraph 4 states, "that in the event that any Ordinance becomes effective in the City within 20 years after the effective date of the Annexation Ordinance, and such Ordinance alters and limits any owners right to use the property as contemplated by the agreement, then the City upon written request of the owner will proceed to take all necessary action to immediately disconnect of the property from the City's boundaries, and the property may not annexed subsequently except by voluntary petition by the owner". In essence what that would do is allow anytime within the 20 year period, if there were to be changes to the zoning district which would in effect change the allowable uses on the property, then they would exercise their right to disconnect from the City creating an enclave. An enclave under normal circumstances, the City would have a right to annex after a period of three years to force annex. The City would not be able to do that if this paragraph were maintained. Staff feels that this requirement is not in the best interest of the City and would recommend, should the Board decide that they were comfortable recommending that the property be placed in the CL Zoning District, that as a minimum, the requirements of the annexation agreement be changed. Member Weitkunat asked if this was in the realm of the Board's authority to agree to an annexation agreement. Assistant City Attorney Duval replied that this was another point in the whole issue that the Board is evaluating right now. In annexation proceedings, the Board is not making the final decision, yet the Board is called upon to make a recommendation to Council, and part of that recommendation would be certain provisions of the annexation Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 12 agreement to get the roads fixed. Member Colton suggested that if there is a lot of construction traffic going through the neighborhood, that they post "no construction traffic" signs, or talk to the developer and ask them not to have their construction traffic drive on your streets. He would be supporting them motion. Member Byrne stated that the mistake that was done was done well in advance of what they are considering here, and one of the things that the City has to be very diligent about is the demands placed on the City budget for streets well exceeds the ability of the City to meet those. Bringing more sub -standard streets into the network of Fort Collins is something that he would very strongly oppose. We can't even keep up with the streets we have now, and those were built to City standards. Chairperson Bell asked about the College/Trilby intersection. She thought that when the Board approved the second phase of Ridgewood Hills that the intersection was supposed to be widened and improved. Ms. Wamhoff replied that the improvements to the intersection as far as pavement has been made. The stripping out there is not in accordance with the plans, and that should be changed so a left turn lane is striped at Trilby Road. It will be a tight intersection, but there will be a left turn lane. Chairperson Bell asked what this neighborhood could do to cut down on the cut-thru traffic on their streets. Ms. Wamhoff replied that it is a public right-of-way, so the City cannot say that they cannot drive on it. The best thing would be to talk to the developer of Ridgewood Hills and see if they could ask their contractors to take a different route. The motion was approved 7-0. REA Annexation and Zoning. #64-93C. Steve Olt, City Planner gave a staff report recommending the approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the HB - Highway Business Zoning District with a planned unit development (PUD) condition. Chairperson Bell asked why staff pulled this item. Director Blanchard replied that it needed to be pulled because the staff Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 25, 1996 Page 2 Director Blanchard pulled item 12, REA Annexation for discussion. Jerry Quinn, citizen pulled item 11, Good Samaritan Village Annexation and Zoning for discussion. Member Byrne pulled item 3, Autoplus Superstore for discussion. Member Byrne moved to approve the consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 including the variance on item 4. Member Gaveidon seconded the motion. The Motion was approved 7-0. AUTOPLUS SUPERSTORE P.U.D.. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #52-85C. Member Byrne stated that he had a list of questions on the project to be answered. Member Byrne asked about the point chart, the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart, and could some background be provided. He was concerned about the points scored and would like them explained. Mitch Haas, City Planner explained that the intention of the point chart is to decide if the location of the use is appropriate and in the LDGS, the only locational criteria is the point charts. The project is scored against this particular point chart (Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart) because it is car sales and it is one of the defined uses for this point chart. Mr. Haas explained that there have been projects that have needed variances from these point charts, so while it may seem easy, it is just the function of this location with the given use. Member Byrne asked about Item C on Non -Arterial, because it appears that the site is on an arteria street, College Avenue. Planner Haas explained that the Criteria as it reads asks if the primary access to the activity from a non -arterial street. The two access drives to this site come off of Creger Drive, which is a drive that comes off of College. It does not have direct access onto College and there is no curb -cuts onto College Avenue. Member Byrne asked if it was possible to get to this site off of College? 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING NOVEMBER 25, 1996 6:30'P.M, Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3416 Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Gaveldon, Byrne, Chapman, Colton, Davidson, Weitkunat, Bell Staff Present: Ludwig, Olt, Wamhoff, Jones, Haas, Duval, Blanchard, Deines. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning Reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda's, which consisted of the following: 1. Minutes of the May 20 and October 29, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #26-96 Cornerstone Presbyterian Church PUD - Preliminary and Final. 3. #52-85C Autoplus Superstore PUD - Preliminary and Final. 4. #28-96 Family Chiropractic Center PUD - Preliminary and Final 5. #2-94H Fire Station #12 - Falcon Ridge PUD, Lots 15 -17 - Amended Final 6. #2-96A University Center PUD - Final (Continued) 7. #14-88N Silver Oaks paired Housing PUD, Subdivision Replat (Lots 1-10, Tract "C" & Tract "D"). 8. Resolution PZ96-15 Abandonment of PUD on Lot 2 of The Third Amendment to Troutman PUD, Second Filing 9. Resolution PZ96-16 Easement Vacation 10. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 11. Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village - Annexation and Zoning 12. REA - Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 13. Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of The Level of Service Manual and Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (Continued)