Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSERVICE CENTER FIFTH ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 25 91, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 24, 1991 MEETING The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chamber of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Jim Klataske, Vice -Chair Bernie Strom, Joseph Carroll, Jr., Laurie O'DelI, Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, and Margaret Gorman. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, City Attorney Steve Roy, and Kayla Ballard. Mr. Peterson gave a description of the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - #52-79E, Rossborough Subdivision 5th Filing Final; Item 2 - #50-85B, Fort Collins Salad Company PUD at The Pavilion Final; Item 3-#30-83D,Helmshire House II PUD Preliminary and Final; Item 4-#27-91,Flutterby Preschool PUD Preliminary and Final; Item 5-#15-91A, Sun Disk Village Subdivision Final Replat; Item 6 - #23-90C, Burns Ranch at Quail Ridge RF Review Final; Item 7-#26-91,Pedersen Toyota Volvo Saab PUD Preliminary and Final, which was pulled from Consent for discussion; Item 8 - #38-9013, Overland Hills Subdivision, First Filing Final which was continued to the July meeting; Item 9- #99-79C, Medical Center of Fort Collins PUD Final; Item 10 - #3-90C, Villages at Harmony West PUD Amended Master Plan; Item 11-03-90B,The Platt Property PUD Preliminary; Item 12- #25-91A, Service Center 5th Annexation and Zoning; Item 13 - #78-88C,Horsetooth East Business Park Rezoning; Item 14 - Resolution #PZ91-9 Vacation of Emergency Access Easement at Creekside at The Landings; Item 15 -Resolution #PZ91-10 Vacation of Utility Easement at the Replat of Fairway 5 Estates PUD at Southridge Greens which was continued to the July meeting; and Item 16 -Resolution . PZ91-11 Vacation of Utility Easement at Foothills Apartments PUD which was continued to the July meeting. The Discussion Agenda consisted of: Item 17 - #37-90,East Side/West Side Rezonings; Item 18 - #28-91, Amendments to Chapter 29 of the City Code Relating to the Hazardous Materials Risk Reduction Program; Item 19- #23-83C, Toys "R" Us/Western Auto PUD Final; Item 20 - #112-79N, Four Seasons Subdivision 8th Filing Preliminary and Final; Item 21-#4-83M,Hickory Hill Village at Cunningham Corners PUD Tract G Final; Item 22 - #55-87C, The Gates at Woodridge (Arapahoe Farrv) PUD Final, and; Item 23 - #55-87D, The Overlook at Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD Final. Mr. Peterson stated that Item #19, Toys "R" Us, would be moved to the bottom of the agenda due to Items 20, 21, 22 and 23 having staff issues resolved. Mr. Peterson gave a description of the administrative change request for Builders Square at Harmony Market PUD, which was under Other Business. Chairman Klataske asked if there was any Board member that wished to pull an item from the Consent Agenda. Member O'DelI asked that Item #2, Fort Collins Salad Company PUD at The Pavilion Final be pulled for discussion. Chairman Klataske asked if there was any of from the audience that wished to pull an item from the Consent Agenda for additional discussion. Mr. R.D. Laken requested that Item #12, Service Center 5th Annexation and Zoning be pulled for further discussion. Member Gorman asked what the applicant would do with an excess of inventory. Mr. Lockwood replied that he called the Poudre Fire Authority to see if there would be a problem with parallel parking the excess cars along the building on the west side. He stated that the Fire Marshall replied that there would be no problem with this. A copy of the letter has been sent to Ms. Whetstone. Member O'Dell moved to approve Pedersen Toyota Volvo Saab Preliminary and Final. She commented that it was well landscaped and believed that it was an attractive site. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that the landscaping plan was far superior to a lot that the Board has reviewed. She believed that a few trees added to the north part of the lot would add to the overall image given off by the asphalt to the north. Member Strom commented that he was still a little concerned with the frontage but was interested to see how it turns out because it is different than anything that the Board has reviewed before. He stated that the overall landscaping was very well done. The motion to approve passed 7-0. -*25-91A Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed annexation and zoning. She stated that the City was the owner of the property and that this was a 100% voluntary annexation. The property was commonly _mown as the Milligan Lumber yard. The City purchased this property in 1991 for future expansion of the Wood Street Service Center. The property was currently zoned I -Industrial in the County. The requested zoning RC, River Corridor, was in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there were no current plans for the existing structure that was on the property. She added that the Service Center will, in the long term, be expanding their services to this property. Currently, this property meets the 1/6 contiguity for state requirements for an annexation. Member Carroll asked if annexing this property would influence the use of the property. Mr. Peterson replied that this would not influence the use of the property. Ms. Dinkelman, 620 Park Street, stated that, on numerous occasions, she has called the Police Department during the night because there would be trucks running their engines for a long period of time. She stated that this was a noise pollution and dust pollution issue. She stated that two weeks ago she was told that a lilac catch for the dust would be planted. She stated that a lilac hedge would not catch the dust the enters the adjacent neighborhood. She stated that the lights from the trucks would shine into the house's windows. She stated that when she bought the property in 1958, it was zoned Industrial but the lumber yard across the street conformed to operating hours of 7 am to 7 pm. On the other side of the property, she had an orchard and a meadow. She had a nice view. She asked if the buildings were going to be kept. She believed that there was drug trafficking in the empty buildings and people sleeping in the buildings. She stated that the week of June 4, the Police Department practiced shooting that was very loud. She stated that she has written letters to the mayor and the Police Chief complaining about this property. 4 Chairman Klataske asked Ms. Whetstone what was the current use of this property. Ms. Whetstone stated that the property was zoned Industrial in the County which would allow truck parking. She stated that the Light and Power Department would move into this area in the long term but presently they use the property for parking and possibly a few other purposes. This annexation will be going to City Council for First Reading on July 2 with the Second Reading going on July 9. She added that since it is 100% voluntary annexation of City owned property, the City may annex without a public hearing. As far as she knew, the City Clerk's office has not sent notification of the hearing because there is no development planned for the property. Ms. Dinkelman asked that if an area was zoned Industrial and was next to residential zoning, shouldn't there be a buffer zone? Mr. Peterson stated that the appropriate form for comment would be at the City Council meeting on July 2. He stated that this was not the first annexation that has come before the Board on the Service Center where a number of citizens complained about the lighting of the back building and how it was operated. Some changes were made because of these complaints. However, the questions of operation and the long term future of that tract are policy related questions that City Council should answer. The Streets Department is currently going through the public process as directed by City Council to move the entire operation to the old sugar beet factory on Vine Drive. The Streets Department would eventually move off -site to the sugar beet factory and the Utilities Department would remain and expand in this proposed site. The department has not seen any development plans. The planning could be done through a PUD review process so the neighborhood would have the opportunity to examine what would be proposed. Otherwise, there would be limited opportunities for any type of public review. Member Walker asked that since this was being annexed into the RC zone, would certain uses such as the parking of trucks be allowed. Mr. Peterson stated that under the RC zone, both parking lots and parking garages were permitted uses. Normally, a typical applicant would have to go through a planning review process. There were also light industrial uses that were appropriate in that zone and the PUD process was available. Member Walker asked if the City would have to go through that review process also. Mr. Peterson stated that the City has done both. Most recently City Council had directed the Streets Department to go through the review process with the sugar beet factory. In other instances in the past, such as the parking expansion next to the service center, applicants have gone through the review process. Historically, there have been other city facilities that have not gone through a review process. Member Walker stated that the City has, as a planning tool, preached mixed use development with buffering to mitigate between different uses and he believed that this was a good case in point. If this were a PUD and had a development on it, the Board would be concerned about these two different land uses and how they could be mitigated. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board consider attaching a comment such as Member Walker's to any recommendation they make to City Council. E 46 Mr. R.D. Laken, 405 Scott Street, stated that he was a landlord in the area and that he has tried to make nice arrangements for tenants for 13 years. He concurred with Member Walker in that there was a difference in the use of the land in that area. He believed that the project planner should be given more time to discuss issues with the property owners. He stated that there were a lot of uses with that land that are being utilized now that won't be available once it is a parking lot for city equipment. He believed that those kind of problems needed to be respected as well as the need to place equipment and to drive trucks through. He believed that the Board was being sensitive to this issue but he believed that they needed to come to terms with what it means to be put out. The environment that you thought was your home was something different. He believed that these problems need to be reviewed carefully and still take all those issues into balance. The citizens concerned need to feel that they have participated in the process. He recommended that they extend their planning far enough so that the project planner can place into the context of her decisions, her recommendations, what would be done with the whole corridor all the way to Shields Street. He added that everyone should get together as people, not as an argumentation and a legal hassle, to see if it can be resolved and keep a perimeter on how the discussion would be handled. Mr. Charles Nauter, 832 Wood Street, stated that the last two properties that the City purchased on Wood Street both have hazardous materials stored on them. He asked if these properties were zoned RC. Mr. Peterson stated that he was not aware of the situation that went into the land purchase for the Bowman property. He stated that he was aware that with the proposed annexation, there was a question of hazardous materials that had to be worked out before the purchase was consummated. He understood that this was resolved. Mr. Nauter asked if, under RC zoning, can the City put hazardous material on the proposed property. Mr. Peterson stated that they can not. The City is required to meet certain standards for storage of hazardous materials. Mr. Roy stated that this was not a question of whether it was a permitted use within the zone but what regulation has been adopted recently by ordinance with regard to the storage of hazardous materials in any zone with regard to any permitted use where those kinds of materials might be handled. Mr. Peterson asked Warren Jones, Poudre Fire Authority Fire Marshall, to elaborate on the status of hazardous materials in terms of regulation under the fire code. Warren Jones stated that the only city regulations dealing with the storage of any kind of hazardous materials are in the fire code which has specific requirements about how far from property line, quantity, the height of piles, etc. They are somewhat related to different kinds of industrial uses which would be allowed in a particular zone. For instance, storage of hazardous materials, flammable liquids, are not a use of a residential area. In an area such as this where there are mixed, older existing commercial industrial type of uses that exist in this area, is a little more difficult to get a hold of. He stated that he was not aware of anything on the proposed site that would be considered hazardous materials such as toxics. Chairman Klataske asked if the City would be exempt from any requirements for storing hazardous materials. A Mr. Jones stated that the City would not be exempt. Mr. Roy stated that there have been a couple of recent cases on this point but stated that he would have to get back with the Board as to whether the City was required to follow its own zoning ordinances, irrespective of whether its acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity and whether its bound to follow all of its police power kinds of regulations. He stated that they would advise City Council of all the issues that have been raised tonight since they are likely to be raised again on the July 2 Council meeting. Member Walker commented that what has been discussed tonight was a good case of the City being more sensitive of the development that they pursue. There are certain reasons why government entities can not follow their own rules and at times may be practical. He stated that with a situation such as this, he would recommend that the City proceed with this as if it were any other industrial user and recognize the fact that they are adjacent to existing residential areas. By the City's owned code, while promoting mixed use, the City was also stating that differences in adjacent land uses have to be mitigated. Member Walker made a motion to approve the Service Center 5th Annexation and Zoning with the recommendation that the City go through the processes of mitigating the differences in land uses between this property and the adjacent properties. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Gorman asked Mr. Peterson if this is zoned to RC, would the City have to come before the Board under the PUD process for any future use. Mr. Peterson stated that if City Council required a future service center expansion to go through the same procedure as the new Streets Department relocation, then that would be a PUD review through the Planning and Zoning Board. The RC zone has options. One is the administrative review track which has standards for certain types of uses, such as parks and playgrounds that have to meet certain performance standards. Member Carroll stated that he would support the annexation but in supporting it, that doesn't, in any way, signify that he would support any type of activity that goes on be it good or bad. The only question that is being presented tonight is should this land, which is owned by the City, be annexed into the City of Fort Collins or should it remain in Larimer County. He stated that he could not determine any reason why the Board would not want the property within the City limits. He believed that annexing this property into the city limits would only be good because the City would have more control over it. If the Board were approving or disapproving a certain use for this property, there would be more discussion. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Mr. Roy stated that in Estes Park there was a proposed parking lot and the question was did the city have to follow its own zoning ordinances. The Supreme Court, in 1984, said that unless the city took action to exempt itself, then it would be obligated to follow its own zoning ordinances. But like other public entities, state statute provides that municipalities and other public entities can be exempted, and should be exempted, from zoning ordinances if the local board of adjustment makes a finding that the present or proposed situation of the building or the structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. If that showing is made, then and only then, does the proposed municipal use become exempt from the application of local zoning ordinances. Otherwise, they do apply. 7