Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST FOSSIL CREEK REZONING - 61-88, B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING November 21, 1988 The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of November 21, 1988 was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the meeting were Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Dave Edwards, Frank Groznik, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, and Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Linda Ripley, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Kayla Bal- lard, and Paul Eckman. Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which included: (I) Minutes of the October 24, 1988 and November 10, 1988 meeting; (2) #78-88 llorse- tooth/Timberline Property PUD - Master Plan; (3) #99-88VE Resolution PZ 88-7 - Vacation of Right -of -Way for a Sewer;, (4) #97-7IVE Resolution PZ 88-9 - Vacation of a Utility Easement in Brown Farm Ist Filing; (5) #79-88 Poudre River Business Park PUD - Master Plan; (6) #79-88A Poudre River Business park PUD, Phase I -Preliminary; (7) #146-79K Raintree Commercial PUD - Tract H - Final; (8) #61-88B West Fossil Creek Zoning; (9) #61-88C West Fossil Creek PUD -Master Plan; (10) #95-88 Anton Annexation and Zoning; (1 1) #35-87 East Prospect Estates Extension Request - County Referral. Fie then reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: (12) #86-88 South College Access Plan; (13) #58-87, A Noel Annexation and Zoning; (14) #8-82D Fox Meadows Business Park PUD -Master Plan; (15) #8-82E Fox Meadows Business Park PUD, Phase 1 - Preliminary; (16) #146-79K Raintree Commercial PUD - "rract H - Final; (17) #73-88 Prospect Plaza PUD - Final; and (18) #50-85C Fort Collins Retail Center PUD - Pavilion PUD Pad A - Preliminary and Final. The following items were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion: West Fossil Creek Zoning and Master Plan and Anton Annexation. Member Shepard stated that in the October minutes, Dave Edwards was referred to as a Member of the Board of Larico. She corrected that statement to read he was a former Member of the Board. She also said the recommend- ation to the County Commissioners on County Referral item #10, Fast Prost)cct Fstatcs I.`xtension Rcqucst, was for denial. Member Kern said that the minutes stated that on page 7, it states, "Member Kern recommended him". He said he "commended." Member Klataske abstained from voting on Item #2. Member Edwards moved to approve Items #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 15. Member Kern second the motion. Vote carried 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve Item #2. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Vote carried 6-0. Member Klataske abstained. P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988 Page 2 • #61-8813 West Fossil Creek Zoning #61-88C West Fossil Creek PUD - Master Plan Linda Ripley, the project planner, gave a combined description of the project. Mikc Clinger, a resident, stated he had concerns regarding the map and was unclear as to what was being proposed. Ms. Riplcy stated the property had been annexed on November 15, 1988, and put in the T-Transition zone to help give flexibility to future development. She said the applicant had asked for 44.6 acres of b-p, planned business and 4 acres h-b, highway business and that due to the location of the property, it would develop into a mix of retail commercial and business service uses. She indicated that the site meets the City's guidelines and criteria for those uses. She stated that there were natural resource conditions, including Fossil Creek, which require that both zonings being conditioned on the property hcing developed as a PUD. The master plan established general land use, addressed circulation and access and designated environmentally sensitive areas. She stated that the land uses wcrc primarily a mix of retail business services, supplemented with residential, office and industrial. They were supported by City policies. She stated that the access concerns were addressed by the proposed rc-alignment • of Fossil Creek Parkway. She said the owner washed to work with the City on Fossil Creek, the Fossil Creek bike trail and the environmentally sensitive arcas. She said that when preliminary plans were submitted, more study will be done on the specific areas of concern. Ric Hattman, represented the applicants. The master plan concerned three different properties and partnerships. He stated the purpose of the master plan was to outline circulation, land uses and the natural resources. He said the Corps of Army Engineers and City Natural Resources Dept. have located areas of importance. The City had developed the South College Access Plan. He said that they looked at the relocation of Fossil Creek Parkway for a number of reasons. The first was that by moving it further south, there would be a flatter transaction on both sides for safer winter traffic, as well as proper arterial streets. He said they felt the land uses were appropriate and wcrc in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. They were appropriate for property located adjacent to the railroad line and arterial. FIc stated that the potential uses for Parcels B, C, H, and 1, adjacent to College Ave. ranged from roadside commercial to retail. Parcels D, E, and F wcrc seen as being developed in a similar fashion to Cameron Park. Tract F was designated as potential residential land and office uses due to its natural environmental settings. Parcel G was designated as potential commercial uses and research development with light manufacturing and industrial uses. He agreed with staff that uses, circulation and resources were important. Thcy met the policies of the master plan. 0 I r • • P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988 Page 3 r] Ms. Ripley stated that staff recommended approval of the zoning with a PUD condition. The master plan should be conditioned that zoning be approved by City Council. Mr. Clinger asked what uses were allowed in the h-p zoning and what PUD meant. Chairperson O'Dell gave a description for the PUD process. Ms. Ripley gave the description of the uses allowed in the h-b zone. She stated that although the uses were broad, the applicant must go through the PUD process. Mr. Clinger asked what type of industrial and manufacturing were planned for area G. Ms. Ripley replied that at the master plan stage, there were no definite planned uses, just potential uses. Chairperson O'Dell told him that any plans for this property would need to come before the Board and he would be notified. Mr. Clinger asked why the different zonings. Ms. Ripley replied that the owner asked for two separate zonings that corre- spond most directly to what was planned for the property. Mr. Clinger asked if a gas station could be built. Ms. Ripley stated that was a possibility, but reiterated that the plans would come before the Board, under the PUD process. Mr. Clinger asked about the proposed PACE Warehouse which was shown on the map accompanying the notification letter. Ms. Ripley stated that PACE could be proposed, but was not being heard by the Board. Mr. VanVelson, President of the Fossil Creek Meadows Homeowners Association, stated the residents tonight was were not discuss against development and thought the meeting to PACE. He stated the residents like Fossil Creek Park and the City's plan shows the preservation of riparian wetlands. He stated that the residents go together to clean up Fossil Creek, Dr. Alex Kringdon, CSU professor, made an inventory of the wildlife in the area. There were concerns about the impact of a warehouse. He felt that the traffic, which included school buses, would be hazardous, especially on snowy days on the hill of Fossil Creek Parkway. He believed accelerated runoff promoted accelerated erosion and they would lose wildlife values. He hoped detention ponds would be built and believed it would be a mistake to grant a variance for the number of ponds to be built. • P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988 Page 4 Chairwoman O'Dell stated the residents would be notificd of spccil'ic dcvclop- mcnt. Mr. VanVelson asked if letters of concern could be sent or should they wait and to whom should they be sent. Ms. Ripley stated yes, but for a specific development. She asked that the letters be sent to her. Mr. Ritzman, property owner, said he received the notification letter on the Saturday, while other residents received it on the 19th. He stated that they needed longer notice so residents can discuss the proposals. He wondered about the mail delay. Debora Moyer, resident, stated she had concerns with what was zoned and Planned for Parcel A. Mr. Hattman stated Parcel A was annexed and zoned in 1985 with b-p and its associated uses. A preliminary plan was approved but expired. No definite uses were planned. Ms. Moyer asked about the parkway on the map and the right in/right out access. Mr. Hattman said an older map was used. It showed the existing parkway which would be moved. He hoped that the road behind Fred Schmid's would connect the development to alleviate any traffic problems. Ms. Moyer said there was no green belt area on the map. Ms. Ripley stated the applicant had been alerted to the aforementioned con- ccrns. She stated that the height standards were 40'. Ms. Moyer asked about signage, even though their subdivisions was not in the City. Mr. Hattman pointed out that the property to be developed was within City limits and would need to meet signagc criteria. He also said that Storm Drainage .Dept. had planned to build drop structures to help alleviate drainage problems and these would be included in the first phase. He stated they did have a neighborhood meeting at which members of Fossil Creek Homeowners' Association were present. Mcmbcr Kern asked if the Corps of Army Engineers needed to be notified. Ms. Ripley stated that the Corps of Army Engineers was concerned with wct- lands of 1 acre or larger, however, a stipulation exists that if a wetland feed a larger wetland, the Corps needed to review it. Some of this project's wetlands nlay fall under that criteria, therefore staff and developers were in touch with them. • • P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988 Page 5 it Member Kern told the residents in the audience to also keep in touch with the Army Corps of Engineers. Member Edwards told the audience that the master plan stage was not specific but the process in the City did work with the neighborhood concerns. Member moved to approve the West Fossil Creek Zoning with a PUD condition. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve the West Fossil Creek Master Plan will) the condition that the zoning be approved by Council. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. AN 1 t)N ANNI?SA'I ION AND 7.t)NING Ken Waldo, Chief Planner, stated this was a request to annex and zone approx- imately 2 acres, located south of Drake Rd. and west of Taft Hill Road, specifically lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Heineman Subdivision. He stated the reason for the annexation was that the owners, who lived on one of the lots, had septic problems and came to the city seeking help. He said the way to resolve utilities could be done by requesting an out -of -city service request or request the property be annexed. lie said Staff met with the owners, explained the processes and since the end C result would be annexation in either case, they decided to proceed with annexation of all four lots. The four lots were presently able to be annexed and in conformance with all the City policies, the UGA agreement, and state statutes for voluntary annexation. He stated that Staff was recommending approval. He said that the zoning of the property was recommended by Staff was R-P. He said the R-P zoning would allow the construction of detached single family house on each of the vacant lot. The properties were also located along south Taft Hill Road which was a major arterial street. It would be expanded in the future. Staff did not believe that the potential zoning would allow the development of detached single family homes, the long term use of these properties might not be for single family development. He said the R-P zone would allow the proposal of a different type of land use and would require the PUD process but the applicant had no development plans at this point and any plans in the future must be submitted by the PUD process. Mr. Arnstedt, an adjacent property owner, stated he owned lot 10 in Heineman Subdivision and 10 acres west of the property. He believed the notification letter was sent out too late and there was not enough time to gather informa- tion for this hearing. He stated the map was incorrect, as the lots concerned with the annexation were lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, one of those owned by Shamrock Manor, and not the lots depicted on the map. He stated the Spring Creek was not shown going through his lot and it does. He then requested that the meeting be postponed to better prepare for the meeting.