Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREA ANNEXATION AND ZONING OCTOBER 25 1993 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 64 93 A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Eckman stated only with respect to non -conforming uses would you find the property owner being able to ignore the PUD condition. He said the zoning that was imposed upon the property, any property, in a case where you are faced with a PUD condition, the State law required all property be zoned. He stated that Staff was attempting to find a zoning designation that best suited the situation. He said the zoning didn't dictate any particular kind of use. He said it may, in some ancillary way, set an expectation. He said it could be zoned low -density residential, with a PUD condition, and then come up with the same kinds of uses that would exist with the HB zone. Mr. Waido stated that the change to the non -conforming use process required a public hearing and a decision by the Board. Mr. Peterson said that PUD requirements, when placed on zoning, gave a higher level of review and detail. He said in a use -by -right designation, there would be limited review that would not get full focus of public attention. He said what was being proposed was at a higher level of review. Member Fontane recommended approval of the REA Annexation and Zoning. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that the H-B zoning with the PUD condition says nothing about the green space that was there. She stated that the Board would be more apt to do something with the PUD condition than without. Whether it was designated H-B made no difference. Motion passed 7-0. PZ93-12 HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION PROGRAM Jennifer Carpenter, Landmark Preservation Commission, stated that the Commission had been working on this project for three years. She stated the LPC Commission was directed by the City Council to work on a plan to avoid crisis, and provide implementation and protection measures for our city's important and unique historic resources. She believed the commission has succeeded in that task. She said the draft represents the labors of many people, the LPC, City staff and many members of the community. She said the commission assembled a technical team which was made up of people with background in history, government, real estate, development, the University, and they all studied the plan and gave valuable input. She said there were numerous public meetings held. She said there were many great ideas and when able to, incorporated into the final draft. Again, she stated the plan is established to avoid crisis whenever possible, strive for a management plan to provide predictability, objectivity and realistic protection measures for our city's historic resources. She said she was available for questions. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 6 the County would be more restrictive and, in some cases, the H-B, Highway Business, Zone would be more restrictive with the PUD condition. He pointed out that this proposal was in regard to annexation and zoning rather than specific proposals that may come forth. PUBLIC INPUT Calla Pott, 4675 Venture Lane, stated that annexation was inevitable and the main concern was that the Poudre Valley Electric Association has the opportunity to literally move forward with this business. She stated that part of this was that their property being annexed into the city. She raised the issue of growth vs. non -growth and stated that it should be managed growth. She emphasized the importance of the aesthetic appeal of new developments being considered. She stated that in light of Amendment 1, the proposal provided a sales tax base for the city, which would be fiscally responsible. She said if annexed, the Board was requested to have a sub -area plan as to what the site areas will look like and a positive vision for the designated south entrance into the city. She pointed out that currently there was a large green area at Poudre Valley Electric Association, hopefully this could stay intact through zoning other than H-B, Highway Business. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements -Cooney stated her concern was not the annexation, but the designation of H-B, highway business, given the surrounding developments without the HB designation, other than Arbor Plaza which should not set the standard for the area. Member Strom added that the underlining zoning does not have much effect if a PUD condition is placed on it, and requested staff clarification. Mr. Waido replied that a Highway Business Zone with a PUD condition, a Limited Business Zone with a PUD condition, a planned business zone with a PUD condition and all would have the same essential effect on the property. He said any development proposal would be needed to be submitted to the City through the LDGS and that the point charts will guide decision - making of the City based on the use that is proposed, not the underlining zoning. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the underlining zoning dictated the kind of proposals that will come before the P&Z Board. Mr. Waido replied no. Member Strom asked Mr. Eckman if there were any situations where the PUD condition would not rule. r Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Eckman asked if the motion specified that there be no sheds on the first three lots. Member Strom clarified, as part of his motion, that there are to be no sheds on the back property line of the three lots adjacent to Dr. Kieft's property, that setbacks would be met whatever their size. Motion passed 7-0. REA ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #6493A Chair Clements -Cooney stated that she had received phone calls regarding this item and wanted to pull it for discussion. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff report with staff recommending approval. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the request for the HB zone came from the City or the property owner. Mr. Waido replied that it came from the applicant. Chair Clements -Cooney asked what can be proposed under the HB designation. Mr. Waido stated the HB designation and the HB designation with a PUD condition were two different things. He stated the PUD condition would require any development proposal to be submitted as a PUD and essentially, through the guidance system, any land use could be proposed. He stated the proposal would then be reviewed for overall development criteria, applicable to all applications, and then the point chart depending on land use proposed. He stated, in terms of annexation and zoning, the HB zone with a PUD condition did not predict what type of land use could go on there; the PUD condition would protect the City in that any development proposal would need to go through the guidance system. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the property to the east of the site was annexed to the city. Mr. Waido replied that it was annexed and zoned B-L, Limited Business, with no PUD condition. He stated a number of retail and office uses were allowed by -right in that zone, in fact, most of those uses east of this site did occur through just the straight zoning. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that the highway business zone has been typically applied in this area on South College with few exceptions. He stated that the zoning in the county is C, Commercial, and B, Business, that allowed similar uses -by -right. He stated that PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 25, 1"3 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The October 25, 1993, 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 Rene` Clements -Cooney, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree and Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Joe Frank, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Carolyn Worden and Heidi Phelps. AGENDA REVIE Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of August 2, August 23, August 30, (September 27 minutes pulled, incomplete), and October 4, 1993, P & Z Meetings. Item 2 - East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Preliminary, #58-93; Item 3 - A Big A Storage PUD - Preliminary, #57-93; Item 4 - Poudre High School Expansion - Site Plan Advisory Review, #59-93; Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD, 1st Filing, Phases 1-4 - Final, #73-82R; Item 6 - Fossil Creek Meter Station PUD - Preliminary & Final, #60-93; Item 7 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #19-93E, Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #19-93 (postponed until November 15 meeting), Item 9 - Victorian Gables at Silverplume PUD - Replat, #62-89E, Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A (postponed until November 15 meeting); Item 11 - Wildwood Farm PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #90-851; Item 12 - Hampshire Pond PUD - Final, #44-93A; Item 13 - PZ93-9 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 14 - PZ93-10 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 15 - PZ93-11 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 16 - PZ93-13 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 17 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 18 - Amendment to South College Avenue Access Control Plan, #69-93; Item 19 REA Annexation and Zoning, #64-93A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 20 - PZ93-12 Historic Resources Preservation Program; Item 21 - Planning Fees, #62-92; Item 22 - Summerhill PUD - Final, #41-93A; and Item 23 - The Preserve Apartments PUD - Final, #146-79P. Staff pulled Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing and Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final. Chair Clements -Cooney requested Item 19 be pulled. Item 12 was pulled by an audience member.