Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LANDS TRACT B ZONING - 39-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF CONTINUED ITEMS JANUARY 30, 1989 The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of January 30, 1989 was called to order at 6:34 p.m. in Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairwoman O'Dell, Frank Groznik, Dave Edwards, Jan Shepard and Alternate Rex Burns. Members absent were Sandy Kern, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Linda Ripley, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Ruth Clear, Peter Barnes, Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. Chairwoman O'Dell stated this was a meeting to hear the remaining items from the January 23, 1989 meeting. Tom Peterson reviewed the remaining items on the agenda which included: #69-84G, CSU Bull Farm PUD, Parcel D - Preliminary; #34-88, Interstate Lands First Annexation; #35-88, Interstate Lands Second Annexation; #38-88, Interstate Lands Tract A Zoning; #39-88, Interstate Lands Tract B Zoning; and #8-89, Amendments to the City Zoning Code Pertaining to Signs. CSU BULL FARM PUD, PARCEL D - PRELIMINARY #69-84G Ted Shepard, project planner, gave the description of the proposed project. Frank Vaught, Vaught/Frye Architects, represented Roger Peterson Real Estate Investments. Mr. Vaught briefly discussed the CSU Bull Farm Master Plan, pad sites of the proposed project, square footage of the anchors, the location and shape, vehicular and pedestrian accesses. He stated there was also a curb cut on Elizabeth Street with a deceleration lane into the curb cut that aligned just west of Wendy's. The far west curb cut aligned with the Taco Bell curb cut and provided a deceleration lane and an island boulevard -type entry. A pedes- trian walkway along Elizabeth Street would be detached in areas that would be detached. A major north -south connection between the two buildings and the easement would be provided. The sidewalk would then continue on Elizabeth Street and connect back into a second crossing and pedestrian bridge. He stated that they were still refining the exact dimensions of the service road. Negotiations were underway with the ditch company to combine their access road with the proposed service road. Mr. Vaught stated that a wetlands had been identified on this property. This particular site would require a nationwide permit. It had been applied for by his engineers. He added that the project was compatible from a scale and material standpoint with the apartment sites. The combined use of brick and synthetic stucco material, along with concrete tile roofs, will be used. The colors would be either identical to or compatible with each other. 0 0 Ruth Clear stated that those lanes should be 10'-12' wide, which will get the right turning vehicles out of the thru-flow of traffic and away from the bicycle traffic. Member Groznik moved to approve CSU Bull Farm Parcel D Preliminary with the four conditions recommended by staff. Member Shepard seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. INTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION - Case #34-88 INTERSTATE LANDS SECOND ANNEXATION - Case #35-88 INTERSTATE LANDS TRACT A ZONING - Case #38-88 INTERSTATE LANDS TRACT B ZONING - Case #39-88 Linda Ripley gave descriptions of the Interstate Lands annexations and zonings. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, briefly discussed the background of the site. He stated that the State Department of Highways was in the process of designing the interchange and frontage road improvements to this location. City staff also had expressed an interest in annexing the property The importance of this interchange has been identified in the Downtown, Eastside Neighbor- hood, Poudre River Trust as well as other planning efforts that have been going on for the past five years. This was a very important entrance to Fort Collins. This annexation process was started in late March of 1988. It has taken this long to come before the Board because they wanted to do some pre- planning at a conceptual level. Some right-of-way was deeded to the Highway Department which needed to be signed by the department. He added that they requested the annexation of 192 acres but because of Boxelder Creek and the other waterways that run through the site, there would only be approximately 120 acres that would be developable. They proposed substantial landscaping along Prospect Road and the interstate. Because of the design of the frontage road, they have ended up with a 30 acre parcel between the frontage road and the interchange. They were also attempting to preserve an approximate 80 acre H-B parcel in the center of the site for a future regional shopping mall. Mr. Ward discussed the master plan which was in progress but not presented to the Board. Traffic could be successfully directed away from local streets. The streets in Boxelder Estates sent traffic to Summitview and north to Mulberry. They would orient their traffic to the frontage road and Prospect Road. He stated that the width of the requested R-P zone was about 560 feet. It would give them adequate space for a residential area. Member Edwards asked if the preliminary plan would accompany the Master Plan for this site. Mr. Ward replied that there has been preliminary interest but there was nothing definite planned for submittal. Member Shepard asked if these two annexations created two enclaves on the north side of Prospect Road. Mr. Ward stated that neither of the two parcels to the south of this area would become enclaves as a result of these annexations. -5- Member Shepard asked what the current land use was for the area to the southwest corner of the requested annexation. Mr. Ward stated that there were a series of large 3-5 acre parcels that have individual homes on them. Member Shepard asked if Phase H of the Master Plan would be multi -family. Mr. Ward stated that this is what was envisioned. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that the Board needed to keep their questions and comments regarding the Master Plan more general rather than specific. Linda Ripley gave the staff report which recommended approval of both annexation and zoning requests with PUD conditions placed on both the R-P and H-B zoning designations. Development then would be evaluated under the Land Development Guidance System. Gerritt Newton, 3418 Boxelder, President of Boxelder Homeowners' Association, stated the association had concerns about the water table, the access into the area, and the transition between the existing Boxelder Estates and what will be planned for this area. In order to provide a proper transition from Boxelder Estates acreage lots to whatever is planned, the R-P area needed to be increased to double its size. He added that there was a lawsuit pending against G. T. Land which concerned an area of about 125 feet in width along Boxelder Estates' eastern boundary. This lawsuit was in regards to the use of the land. Because of this lawsuit, the association requested that the first 125 foot strip running north and south along Boxelder Estates' eastern boundary be designated T-Transitional until the legal issues were resolved. Linda Ripley responded to Mr. Newton's concerns and stated that developments are required to do 3 dwelling units per acre or more under the LDGS. Paul Eckman stated that the city had petitions certified by an attorney as to the ownership of the property and if that should turn out to be incorrect, and if the court should determine that someone else had some right -of -use, the right decreed by the court would be binding, notwithstanding whatever zoning the Planning and Zoning Board might recommend to City Council or what Council might end up placing on the property. Transition zoning can be recommended if the Board wished although recommendation of the zoning requested would not detrimentally impact the outcome of that lawsuit. Chairwoman O'Dell asked, if the outcome of the lawsuit would find in favor of someone other than the property owner, how would that affect the zoning that the Planning and Zoning Board is recommending. Paul Eckman stated that it would not affect the zoning but it might affect who has the right to use and occupy the property. Frederick Smith, 1047 Greenfield Court, stated that he concurred with Mr. Newton and would like to see the area expanded that was designated R-P. He suggested that they move the high density business further east. He also requested assurances that the traffic would be directed away from their neighborhood. ME Jay Kammerzel, 3418 Surrey Lane, stated that as a county resident, he has had no say in the selection of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that this neighborhood was a quiet community and felt that this environment should not be changed by the proposed development. He added that another concern was that G. T. Land would not be the people who would develop the property. He stated that he would like to see this area zoned T-Transition. Member Groznik asked Mr. Ward to address the streets going through Boxelder Estates. Mr. Ward stated that the site was designed so that those street connections were not necessary. However, sometimes police and fire state that their response time could be cut down if they could go through a neighborhood. This has been debated in a number of neighborhoods around town over the last few years. He stated that if there would be a need for emergency access, there were design solutions that can allow emergency vehicles through and not everyday traffic. Member Edwards asked what the difference was between city planning pro- cesses and county planning processes and which is more restrictive. Mr. Ward stated that the city, in general, was more rigorous and tended to have a tighter set of detailed guidelines and controls. The city dealt with urban intensities of development where impacts tend to be greater which created a greater level of scrutiny although it was not as wide of a gap as it was ten years ago. Member Edwards moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands First Annexation. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Member Shepard moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands Second Annexation. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion car- ried 5-0. Member Groznik moved to Lands Tract A Zoning with Planned Unit Development. ried 5-0. Member Groznik moved to Lands Tract B Zoning with Planned Unit Development. recommend to City Council approval of Interstate the condition that it comes before the Board as a Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion car - recommend to City Council approval of Interstate the condition that it comes before the Board as a Member Shepard commented that she would support the motion but would have felt more comfortable if there had been additional R-P area designated in the northern corner. She added that given the fact that there was a PUD condition and that this was undevelopable land, perhaps those single family residences would not be adversely impacted. Member Edwards commented that he felt that the citizens that live in the area, regardless of what jurisdiction they live in, will be better served by having this particular parcel go through the city planning process rather than the county planning process. -7- Chairwoman O'Dell commented to the neighboring property owners of this pro- posal that this will go to City Council. At that time, the adjacent neighborhood will have the opportunity for input on these annexations and zonings. She added that at the time a specific development is proposed, it will come back before the Planning and Zoning Board for a final decision, not a recommend- ation item to City Council. The Board will review what is proposed as a buffer or transition area between their area and what could potentially become a regional mall. At that time the Board could discuss if there would need to be additional greenbelt setbacks or if more single family would be appropriate. She stated that because it was zoned H-B, it did not necessarily mean that the Highway Business would take up the entire space. Member Edwards commented that by the Board zoning this anything, the Board was not necessarily superceeding any private suits or the outcome of any private suits. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SIGNS Case #8-89 Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, gave a description of the proposed zoning code amendment. He stated that there were two changes to the proposed ordinance submitted to the Board for review: 1) Section 2 - with respect to the definition of ideological sign - the phrase "ideological shall mean a sign other than an election sign" should be deleted; and 2) Section 8. He proposed adding a subparagraph 2, (Section 29-599 (2)) to clarify that an election message can be included as an ideological sign and, by meeting the requirements of ideolog- ical sign, it is not subject to the time and size limitations pertaining to an election sign. Mr. Barnes continued by stating that the purpose of the sign code was three- fold: 1) to protect the aesthetic qualities of the city; 2) to ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and 3) to recognize the first amendment rights of persons posting signs. He summarized the proposed changes by stating that the most significant effects would be to: 1) permit an unlimited number of election signs for a specified period of time while still regulating the size of the sign; and 2) to specifically permit the expression of non-commercial ideological messages on the same basis, or less restrictive basis, than commercial signs in all districts. Mr. Barnes stated that election signs could be erected without a permit and there could be any number of these signs. However, since they are of a tempo- rary nature and there are no limitations as to the number of how many can be erected, it would still be important to have some control over them for safety purposes, therefore, size criteria has been established. He briefly reviewed sections of the code as follows: Section 1 - deletes fraternal, religious and civic organizations and educational institutions from the list of entities whose flags, pennants or insignias are exempt from the sign code; 2) Section 2 - established clear definitions for elections signs and ideological signs; 3) Section 3 -clarifies the current section of the code which exempts certain types of signs from needing permits; 4) Section 4 - amends the regulation pertaining to the number of political signs which are allowed in residential zones; 5) Section 5 -adds ideological signs to the list of permitted signs in residential zones and IF:11