Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW NOTE PARTNERSHIP FIRST ANNEXATION & ZONING - 5-89, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (2)0 r� PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF CONTINUED ITEMS MARCH 6, 1989 The continued meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Frank Groznik, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, and Rex Burns. Member Jan Shepard was absent. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kayla Ballard and Paul Eckman. _#5-89,A - NEW NOTE --*I ANNEXATION AND ZONING #6-89,A - NEW NOTE #2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a summary of the projects. She noted that staff recommended approval of the requested annexation and IL zoning district with a condition that a unified PUD Master Plan be submitted and approved by the Board prior to any development of the site. She stated that there was an additional staff memo to address the concerns expressed by the Board at worksession. It also suggested four options which could be considered by the Board. Member Walker asked for a description of surrounding areas. Ms. Clark used the vicinity map to point out the surrounding areas and the zoning designation. She pointed out the residential area to the west and the location of the Poudre River. Eldon Ward represented the applicant. He stated that the site contained part of the Poudre River Floodplain. He believed that only half of the property was developable. The applicant would like some certainty of allowed uses. The applicant would like to have the option of the IL and IP zone process. It would respond better to the proposed uses. He noted projects in the area which did not have to go through the PUD process. He believed the condition needed further discussion. He said that a letter was sent to the Board which stated that a Master Plan was a good compromise. After review of the staff memo, the applicant still was unsure how detailed the condition should remain. Member Walker asked how the area near the Poudre River might be developed. P & Z Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Ward stated that at the moment, the floodway still needed to be determined. He thought that the area adjacent to the river would not be developed except for the trail corridor. He said the ponds, which had been mined in the past, were examined for possible reshaping to enhance attractiveness. He stated that they could give a better idea of development when the floodway was established. He estimated that would take six months. The applicant wished to be annexed prior to the increase in REA rates. Member Groznik asked if the applicant had had any conversations with those involved in the Poudre River Study. Mr. Ward did not believe anyone had spoken with them. Member Edwards asked if the annexation and zoning could be dealt with separately. Mr. Ward said yes. He stated that the applicant was familiar with the current county zoning and land uses and would like to know how they would be affected by the City's zoning and uses before they were annexed. Mr. Eckman noted that the zoning would not have to happen with the annexation but would have to occur within 90 days of the annexation. Member Kern asked how the City's zoning would differ from the County's zoning. Mr. Ward stated the only difference was the use by right versus the PUD process. Member Kern would not want to zone the property for other than commercial uses, but his concern was that Harmony Road would continue to be developed as it was in other developments along Harmony. He believed the concerns were that the City maintain an appropriate gateway on one of the City's more developable entryways. Mr. Ward asked if the condition could be dependent upon review of the streetscapc plans. Based on the projects that the W.W. Reynolds Company has worked on, he saw no disparity of intent. He believed if a Harmony Corridor Study could be done by the city, then future projects could comply with the guidelines. He stated that they could respond to those concerns and believed the IL to be compromise of proposed zonings on the site. Mr. Peterson pointed out the importance of Harmony Road as a gateway. This was the reason for the condition. The condition was an attempt to provide the necessity for any developments to meet certain standards and conditions. He stated that there will be similar development proposals in the future. Mr. Eckman stated that a zoning with the PUD condition was the more simple process. He hoped the condition would not limit land uses, but outlined how the uses would appear when built. He said the first part of the condition was u + P & Z Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1999 Page 3 information needed for submittal and the second paragraph outlined the review and approval process by the Board. Member Kern agreed with the Master Plan concept. Member Walker believed this could be a viable process, but would not like to shorten the process time by going around the PUD procedure. Member Kern asked staff what would be the criteria by which staff judged whether or not to put on a condition. If the criteria was not fully developed, then the Board had no basis for judgement. Ms. Clark replied that the criteria would be based on property location, surrounding land uses, and existing residential zoning. Member Kern asked if there would other projects along Harmony Road which could require the same treatment. Mr. Peterson answered yes. Member Walker asked if the Harmony Corridor could be developed by a PUD process and the remainder by a master plan process. He would not be sure that conditions on a master plan could address concerns and would like to review each PUD on that part of the property. Mr. Peterson stated that Member Walker's comments could be made into a condition. Chairperson O'Dell had concerns as to the view offered by this site to persons on I-25, which was adjacent to the property. Ms. Clark stated that staff reviews all annexation and zonings in much the same way and does not always recommend a PUD condition on the zoning, as the uses are fairly specific. She said that in this case, an IL with a master plan condition would accomplish the concerns of staff. Mr. Ward pointed out that in an IL Review, the Board would review the subdivision plat and major street landscaping would be included on that plat_ Member Edwards voiced concerns that the applicant wanted to avoid the PUD process. Mr. Ward stated that the applicant did not wish to get out of the PUD process, but would like to know the land uses allowed. In the IL process, the specific uses were determined, while in a PUD process, it was uncertain. Mr. Peterson noted an IL site plan would create a vested right and the plans would be reviewed at a public meeting. Member Kern stated that given the surrounding area, he could not imagine the P & Z Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1989 Page 4 need for a neighborhood meeting and given the uses permitted, he could not see the uncertainty expressed by the applicant. Mr. Ward said that with a PUD, you don't have the use until Board acts upon the proposal_ Member Walker had concerns that the applicant felt the PUD process took too long and the Board was expected to remedy this situation. He believed that they were asked to create a policy on an alternate approach to annexation and zoning. He agreed that a master plan with street design specifications would be fine, but he was not comfortable with a new policy. Ms. Clark gave staff report and stated that staff recommended approval with the condition that unified PUD Master Plan be submitted and approved by the Board prior to any development of the site. She noted additional wording by the City attorney in the condition. Member Kern asked how the site plan for IL-IP was different from PUD. Ms. Clark stated the PUD site plan requirements, such as landscape, setback, elevations are also required on IL-IP. With a PUD, the staff could negotiate on things, such as setbacks, etc. The IL-IP Review dealt with City Code and staff could not go beyond those requirements. The added condition would require more specific and restrictive requirements than what the Code required. Member Kern asked if the master plan would have the guidelines necessary for development. Ms. Clark replied yes and that the plans could be reviewed by staff at submittal and brought to the Board. Member Kern asked about amended master plans. Ms. Clark stated that any amended master plans would come to the Board. Bill Swcts, a county resident, had concerns that the Boxelder Ditch would be affected by the development of the property and that in turn would affect their farms and other farms in the area. He believed any paving could cause Boxelder Ditch and Arthur Lateral to overflow and damage irrigation systems. Ms. Clark explained that with any review, the storm drainage department would analyze the site based on the proposed development. She noted that any ditch located on a development site required a signature of approval on the final utility plan by a representative of the ditch company, prior to finalization of any plans. She said this gives the irrigation company a chance to make sure there are no negative impacts. Member Groznik stated that if staff had 15-20 projects with varied guidelines, how effective will the review be. } P & Z Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1989 Page 5 Mr. Eckman stated that if they review each project as it comes along, they will end up with the plethora of these zonings, each with different criteria and will be a difficult administrative problem in the future. Mr. Peterson pointed out that Staff frequently reviews projects with design guidelines attached. It is not an undue administrative burden but did require work. He did agree with Mr. Eckman and one possible way to address this situation would be to create an ordinance to deal with these applications. Chairperson O'Dell asked Ms. Clark to explain what type of development was allowed in the floodplain areas. Ms. Clark stated no permanent structures were permitted in the floodway and the Storm Drainage Board did review variance requests for different types of construction uses in floodplains. The study underway to determine the actual floodplain will give better direction in terms of development. Chairperson O'Dell asked how the wetlands would be treated. Mr. Peterson noted the wetlands located on the site, were along the Poudre River and the artificial pond, created by gravel mining. He stated these areas would be reviewed closely. Chairperson O'Dell asked if a warehouse -type development would be allowed along the River. Ms. Clark responded by stating that the wetlands would be protected. Any development impacts would be reviewed to determine if mitigation would be appropriate. Member Kern believed it was appropriate to annex the property but asked if the site should be given a T-Transition zone and wait for an ordinance to create guidelines. He suggested a worksession to discuss such an ordinance. Membcr Burns had concerns about. how the guidelines were developed and applied. He stated he would favor a worksession to develop the idea in more detail. Member Walker had concerns about the treatment of the Poudre River Floodway and the Harmony Road site. If the site could be developed under the IL Zone to everyone's satisfaction, then either a master plan with detail regarding Harmony Rd. frontage or a PUD condition for the strip along Harmony and the remaining an IL site review could be pursued. Mr. Peterson stated that an 80' strip was appropriate along Harmony Rd. Member Walker did not believe the Board was concerned about the whole site and it's development, just the Harmony Rd. frontage. P & Z :Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1989 Page 6 Member Edwards was concerned about the whole Harmony Rd, corridor process and the River corridor. Member Kern believed the applicant had some certainty in regards to the use. Chairperson O'Dell asked if the applicant's wish was to make this a competitive piece of property and wondered if the Board was giving an unfair advantage, as they had not reviewed similar projects such as this. Mr. Ward cited properties which were reviewed under these rules and stated that many annexations were zoned with a unified master plan and not a PUD. He believed it was hard to develop an industrial area with a PUD, as the tenants were unknown. Member Kern pointed out that even when building a home, it was necessary to make it attractive so it would sell. In an industrial area, it was less expensive to put up a plain box. It was a concern that the proposal be attractive. Mr. Ward stated that they are searching for the necessary quality control without going through the whole PUD process. Member Edwards asked the applicant if he was agreeable to the master plan condition. Charles Dean, W.W. Reynolds Company, stated that he would like specifics relative to land uses. He noted the constraints caused by the floodplain and Poudre River and believed that they would be coming back with PUD projects. He believed there were concerns on how the Poudre corridor was going to be developed. If annexed, they could dedicate the corridor to the City and let the City deal with it. It was in a floodway and undevelopable from the standpoint of warehouses. If the property was purchased, mitigation relative to the floodway will need to be done in trying to channelize the waters to salvage the site. He stated the other concern was to have some assurance everything will turn out alright. He said that one of their concerns was that as Board members change, what was agreed upon originally may not be interpreted the same way in the future. In regards to the concern about time frame, the uncertainty of the outcome was why they did not want to deal with PUD, but would probably deal with the PUD process from time to time. He would be agreeable to a master plan and covenants as staff has recommended. He will not be ready until a better understanding is achieved as to what kind of property can be salvaged out of the 240 acres due to the floodline. Member Edwards asked which are industrial sites along Harmony have a similar Master Plan provision? Mr. Peterson clarified that the applicant had the property under contract. They were exploring the development potential of the property. They were not the property owners and the contract will expire if they decide it does not meet their particular needs. 0 0 ' P & Z Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1989 Page 7 Member Kern believed the developer wanted the security of use by right. If the property was zoned IL or IP with a PUD condition, he would be assured of all these uses. He could not see why a new policy should be made tonight. Mr. Frank thought the Oak Cottonwood Farm plan requirement and possibly the Oakridge with a PUD requirement. He said many of Master Plan requirement, have been residential. property was zoned IG with a PUD condition requirement. He stated there have not been requests. was zoned RLP with a master development had mixed zoning the PUDs that had a unified He stated the Anheuser Busch also with a unified master plan many recent IL or IP zoning Member Burns asked if areas along Prospect Street, Prospect East Park and Seven Lakes Industrial Park are zoned with a Master Plan condition? Mr. Frank stated that the developers of the Prospect East Park wanted to do a Master Plan for the entire site. He stated that the first use on the south side of Prospect came in as a PUD and subsequent phases of the development have been done under administrative review of the IP-IL districts. Mr. Peterson stated the Tiley piece on Timberline where a Fish and Wildlife Service building was proposed came in as a PUD, while another portion of it in the back of the property, the CBW application, came in as an IL plan review. He suggested holding a worksession to discuss these issues, because staff at this point will need guidance from the Board. Member Edwards noted that whatever precedent was established by way of a compromise position, it will create the model for what transpires in the future with other properties. Member Kern stated his inclination would be first to annex and then either zone it T or IL with a PUD condition. The Board could always lower that but you can never turn it the other way. He believed this gave the developer the assurance that it will develop with a list of uses and give him a sellable product. Member Kern moved to recommend approval of the New Note First Annexation to City Council. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Kern moved to recommend approval of the New Note First Zoning of IL to City Council, with a PUD condition. Member Walker seconded the motion. Chairperson O'Dell asked if the meeting should be continued in order to discuss with staff the zoning and possible ordinances. Member Edwards asked that the worksession consider different guidelines. Mr. Peterson stated that the first reading of the annexation would take place on March 21 and second reading on April 4, so any recommendation would need to be done prior to April 4. P & Z Meeting Minutes - March 6, 1989 Page 8 Chairperson O'Dell asked if the Board could look at this at the regularly scheduled meeting in April. Mr. Peterson stated yes and that the Board could also schedule a worksession. Motion passed 6-1, Mr. Burns in the negative. Member Walker moved to recommend approval of the New Note Second Annexation to City Council. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Member Grozalk moved to recommend approval of the New Note Second Zoning of IL to City Council with a PUD condition. Member Kern seconded the motion. Chairperson O'Dell thought the decision was based on the applicants belief that the PUD process was too lengthy. She would like the Board to develop guidelines for the entrances to the City. Member Groznik stated the applicant had indicated he would probably come before the Board with a PUD application as development occurs, so Member Groznik did not believe the PUD condition would burden the developer, hence his motion. Member Walker believed the issue was the appearance of the entryway and there was no other way to review this except a PUD. The Board was restricted to the recommendation. Member Edwards said the Board had expressed a desire to develop guidelines to expedite the matter so the developer would have direction as to how development along Harmony Road streetscape would occur in the entryway areas. Member Kern agreed that the Board desired attractive development in that area. Motion passed 6-1, Mr. Burns in the negative. 7-MA - Koldeway Annexation and Zoning, Member Kern moved to recommend approval to City Council of the Koldeway Annexation. Member Walker seconded the motion. Charles Dean, the applicant, stated he asked for BP zoning because he believed he was constrained with the PUD condition, and that it seems there was no real criteria under which applicants were judged. Ms. Clark gave a brief summary. She stated staff recommended approval with a BP zoning with no PUD condition on the zoning because the BP district only allows multi -family as uses -by -right. All other uses would develop as a PUD.