Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWHITHAM PROPERTY - REZONE - 24-02A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 8 Member Colton added that the Board would be looking for an appropriate buffer when the ODP comes through the process. Member Craig seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that since the item could not be continued, he would not be supporting the motion. He cited the Price Pipe Company and stated that it caused lost jobs and bad feelings when the neighbors complained. It should have been buyer beware. He stated that he would support an MMN zone or another zone that is closer in use to Industrial. The motion was approved 4-1 with Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon voting in the negative. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would encourage the applicant to work with neighboring properties. Other Business Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he wanted to discuss an action i!O that c Jackson or Joe Frank was going to look into regaZand ctivities with r ect to Board members attending open houses Attorney Ec an replied that he sent a memo to the Plg Board members on Ju 13, 2003 regarding the Harmony Coending neighborhood meets s. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon ted that he re mbered that but wanted to know how it applied when going to op houses r City Plan update or other things that will be coming to the Board as r o mendations. He added that Ken Waido stated that these meetings are for p is 'tizens and that the Board gets more information through worksession . Attorney Eckman replied t the reason the Harmo ylporridor meetings were different was because was obvious that the Lifestyle Caer would eventually be submitted as a oject Development Plan that would come before the Board as a quasi-judi I matter. City Plan update will not come before'h Board — it is purely legisl ive. Attorney Eckman stated that he saw no issue with'c�flict of interest i hat and could not see how that would create an impartial tribunal for the rd in the context of any quasi-judicial hearing that might come before"the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 7 Planner Moore stated that he was the one heading up the investigation of Mr. Dijack's property. He stated that everything Mr. Dijack stated was true and that the operation is a very clean one. Chairperson Torgerson cited Weld County's "Right to Farm" covenant that is placed on the plat. He asked if perhaps this may be an appropriate tact for this instance. It would put people on notice that there are industrial operations adjacent to the property and that they were there first. People moving in would have to buy with that knowledge. Chairperson Torgerson stated that it would not be appropriate at the zoning hearing tonight but asked if that was something that could be explored in further review. Attorney Eckman replied that it could be and that perhaps it should be discussed as part of the Land Use Code revisions. He added that he vaguely recalled general assembly passing something like that recently. Noise, odor, vibration, glare, light, spillage — those are the things that would have to be considered with respect to compatibility. Attorney Eckman added that after listening to Mr. Moore, it seems that there is no noise or odor emitted. If the Board is inclined to think that an LMN zone district next to an Industrial district is not appropriate, it could recommend another zone district and recommend that the Structure Plan map be amended to reflect such other zone. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he thought the two zones were appropriate next to each other but that there were going to be inherent conflicts between the two uses. In order to protect the existing uses, something like the "Right to Farm" ordinance may be appropriate at a later date. Attorney Eckman stated that he had not been able to find the ordinance referred to by Planner Olt in the City Code. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the issue came up with the property northeast of this one and that there seems to be protection for Industrial uses moving in next to existing residential but not vice -versa. Member Colton stated that LMN allows a number of uses so it does not necessarily have to be housing there. A buffer with some kind of office park or neighborhood shopping may be more appropriate. If the project is coming to the Board, we could make sure that an appropriate buffer is in place. Member Colton moved to recommend approval of the Whitham Property Rezoning, File #24-02A, to City Council. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 6 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Dijack to come down and asked if the Board was addressing his concerns on this or if he needed more information. Mr. Dijack replied that he had no information at all and that he had never met these people before. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if he had been invited to a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Dijack replied that he had not. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the meeting was hosted by the City of Fort Collins. Planner Olt replied that it was. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Mr. Dijack was invited to the meeting. Mr. Dijack stated that he had been invited to the meeting but was out of town. He stated that he had purchased the property about 10 years ago and had made substantial improvements to it since then. He stated that about a year ago, Waterglen was built across the road and that he was told by Ken Crumb that he would not have access to the street because he would not give Mr. Crumb an easement. That was rectified once he talked with the Mayor. Mr. Dijack stated that he had received a call about six months ago from someone in the City claiming he was burning dead animals in the building at night. He stated that they have a commercial dryer and manufacture biologics — they are a USDA Biologics plant which means that they make natural drugs. The product we make is colostrum — a beneficial product for everyone. Mr. Dijack stated that he does not burn dead animals and that white smoke results when the temperatures are below 30 degrees. The person from the City suggested that Mr. Dijack have the City and County inspect his property. According to Mr. Dijact, they did not want to make a decision and referred him to the State Health Department because of emissions. Mr. Dijack stated that the State Health Department individuals told him he did not even need a license to do this. Mr. Dijack stated that his concerns lie with the fact that he has improved the property a great deal, that Waterglen went in across the road with some difficulty, and that it is difficult to change the public perception that he may be burning dead animals. He stated that he is planning to expand his property within the buffer zones. He stated concern about a new neighborhood coming in and not being aware of what he does on his property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 5 Attorney Eckman replied that he would recommend that the Board not continue the item because of the fact that it is in the Transition zone and the Land Use Code requires that the Board remove property from the Transition zone promptly. He added that these matters could be considered more appropriately at the development stage. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that Mr. Sherman should not have brought up anything about the CDP stage at this time. Attorney Eckman replied that Mr. Sherman's remarks were appropriate with respect to possible continuance of the item. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he was missing information and he would like to hear more from Mr. Dijack. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that if Mr. Dijack was not totally on board and needed more information, the Board should continue the project or he would not support it. Attorney Eckman stated that he did not recommend the item be continued. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why it could not be continued. Chairperson Torgerson replied that there is a statutory requirement. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there was a timetable the Board was against. Attorney Eckman replied that in the Transition District, Division 4.9, the Code says that the owner of any property in the T district may at any time petition the City to remove the property from this zone district and place it in another zone district unless the following time limitations are waived by the petitioner, any such petition shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board to be considered at the next regular meeting of such Board which is scheduled at least 30 days from the date the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Within 60 days from the date the matter is considered by the Board, the City Council shall change the zoning for the property in question to another zone district authorized under this article. Attorney Eckman stated that the Board is governed after that by the comprehensive plan which suggests LMN for the zone district. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if we were within the 30 days, or 60. Attorney Eckman replied that he did not know when it was submitted. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 4 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that a problem exists and needs to be addressed and that he was not willing to support the rezoning until we know we will not have these pitfalls again for this gentleman (Mr. Dijack). Chairperson Torgerson asked what buffering would be required if an industrial use were moving next to a residential use. In this case, we are looking at 600 feet minimum because of Cooper Slough. Planner Olt replied that Cooper Slough runs along the east side of Mr. Dijack's property for a distance then meanders back to the west. It then goes into the Whitham property. Along the west property line of Mr. Dijack's property, the Slough does not separate the two. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the 600 feet would suffice as a buffer if an industrial use were moving next to a residential use. Maybe it's a moot point given the natural area buffer requirement. Director Gloss cited an illustration in the Board packets that served to clarify the configuration of Cooper Slough and the relative distance of this property with Mr. Dijack's property. Director Gloss stated that the conflict may happen right at the western property boundary of Mr. Dijack's property where it abuts the subject property, immediately south of Vine Drive. He suggested citing the Land Use Code for the appropriate setback requirements. Roger Sherman, with BHA Design, 4803 Innovation Drive, Fort Collins, the applicant for the project, stated that he wanted to emphasize that this is a rezoning. He stated that the ODP has already been submitted and that it would be coming before the Board as well. He suggested that the buffer zones be worked on with the Board at the ODP level. Chairperson Torgerson stated that was typical when dealing with buffer issues. He asked if the applicant intended to meet with adjacent property owners as part of the ODP process. Mr. Sherman replied that there was a neighborhood meeting but that details had not yet been discussed. He added that they would be glad to discuss them with the adjacent property owners. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he was concerned about process and about getting to the ODP at this time. He stated that the item may have to be tabled to get more information. He asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if he was correct. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 3 Doug Moore, Natural Resources Planner, stated that there will be additional buffering on the property because parts of the property fall within 300 feet of Cooper Slough. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the Cooper Slough bordered the eastern boundary of the property. Planner Moore replied that it did and that it lies in between the Imu-Tek property and the Whitham property as well. Planner Olt stated that an incorrect staff report had been erroneously placed on the City website, accounting for the error on the zoning of the staff report found on the website. Member Craig asked if upcoming Land Use Code revision discussions would include adding criteria for a residential use moving in next to an established industrial use in order to protect the existing use from neighbors complaining. Planner Olt replied that there is a nuisance ordinance which deals with that issue and protects the existing user, in this case Mr. Dijack, in the case of a residential or less extensive use moving in next to him. The ordinance states that when you move to a nuisance, you are doing that knowingly. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon cited an example of the Darrel Price Pipe Company being next to a residential area. The residents complained and the company shut down. Mr. Gavaldon asked why the ordinance did not help them. He wanted to be sure that Mr. Dijack and his property are thoroughly covered. Planner Olt replied that he could not speak to the specific example but that the point was well noted. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that perhaps the item should be tabled in order to get the answers and bring it back to the Board. Planner Olt replied that this had been through extensive evaluation through the East Mulberry Corridor Plan process which is now three years in the making. All of this was taken into account knowing that the property was zoned I — Industrial. The East Mulberry Corridor Plan has identified this particular property as Low Density Residential. It is also supported by the Structure Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 2 Project: Whitham Property Rezoning, #24-02A Project Description: Request to rezone 160.3 acres from T, Transition to LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The request is for rezoning of a property located on the south side of East Vine Drive between North Timberline Road (1/2 mile to the west) and Interstate 25 (1/2 mile to the east). The property is currently vacant. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the property is 160 acres located on the south side of Vine Drive, '/4 mile west of 1-25, and 1/4 mile east of Timberline Road. There is intent to develop the property at this time. The request LMN zone district is consistent with the City Structure Plan and with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Henry Dijack (sp?), 3541 East Vine Drive, Imu-tek Laboratories or Imu-tek Animal Health, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that page 2 of the staff report found on the website says that the surrounding zone districts are all agricultural. Mr. Dijact is the owner of the property directly east of the Whitham property and stated that his property is actually zoned Industrial. He stated concern about the property being zoned for homes and asked if there would be a buffer between the homes and the industrial zoning. The applicant declined to give a presentation. Chairperson Torgerson asked Planner Olt to discuss the buffering that may be required, noting that the project is a rezoning and not a specific project development. Planner Olt replied that at the time a Project Development Plan is submitted, it will be subject to the setback and buffering requirements that are set forth in Article 3.2.1 and the LMN zoning district section of the Land Use Code. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Roll Call: Schmidt, Colton, Gavaldon, Craig, and Torgerson. Members Meyer and Carpenter were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Stringer, D. Moore, K. Moore, Harridan, and Alfers. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the June 19, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ03-08 — Easement Dedication. 3. #24-02A Whitham Property Rezoning. Discussion Agenda: 4. #21-83M Brittany Knolls, Filing 2, Respite Care Center, Project Development Plan. Henry Dijack (sp?), citizen asked that Item #3, Whitham Property Rezoning, File #24-02A, be pulled from the consent agenda. Chairperson Torgerson asked for public input on the Brittany Knolls Project Development Plan, specifically asking if there was any objection to it being added to the consent agenda. There was no public objection. Member Colton moved to move Item 4 to the Consent Agenda and moved for approval of Consent Items 1, 2, and 4. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.