Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING 9.24.90 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 36 90, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • September 24, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman. Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Ken Waido and Gail Ault. Board Members present at the September 21, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, Margaret Gorman and Lloyd Walker. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the July 23, August 22, and August 27 meetings; Item 2 - Enclave at Golden Meadows, 5th Filing -Replat of Lots 1-22, Preliminary and Final, #78-80E; Item 3 - Overland Hills Subdivision - Preliminary, #38-90; Item 4 - Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd • Filing, Preliminary, #38-90A; Item 5 - Huntington Hills PUD, Replat, #11-81 F; Item 6 -Galatia Annexation and Zoning, #36-90. Staff requested that Item 6 - Galatia Annexation and Zoning be pulled for discussion. Citizen Tim Beatty, 2614 Powell Place, asked that the Overland Hills Subdivision, Items #3 and 4, be pulled. Member O'Dell moved to approve consent agenda Items 1, 2, and 5. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. OVERLAND HILLS SUBDIVISION, Preliminary - #38-90 OVERLAND HILLS SUBDIVISION, 2nd Filing - Preliminary, #38-90A Steve Olt gave staff report on this 1987 annexation recommending approval. He noted it would be served by City Light and Power; sanitation in the first filing would be by the district and in the 2nd filing by septic system. There are four conditions on each item: 1. Trail alignment will be coordinated with City including a 50 foot wide easement for Spring Creek Trail. 2. Springfield Subdivision, 6th Filing, Amended Plat of Lots 24, 25, and 26, must be recorded with the County prior to final approval. 3. The Development Agreement will indicate property owners of Parcel C will be responsible for their portion of construction of both the east and west sides of Overland Trail extension when it is built. • 4. A HEC-2 analysis, stream profiles and cross sections will be provided at time of final review so easements and tracts can be determined. 0 Tim Beatty asked about the Overland Trail extension. Ken Waido responded the proposed extension of Overland Trail has been • relocated to the flat portion of ground between Drake and 38E. Ken explained development activity would be the actual deciding factor of how and when Overland Trail develops but the City is currently reserving options for this development. Karen Johnson, Highlands West resident, asked how the developer arrived at the number of lots in each filing. Jim Gefroh, representing the applicant, indicated the topography of the land was the main factor in how the number of lots in each subdivision were determined. Filing One is on higher land lending itself to typical single family lots, although larger lots than those in the subdivision to the east and smaller than Highland Hills to the south. Mr. Beatty went on to state the smallest lot in Highland Hills is 20,000 square feet and the largest in this development barely that large. He felt this development would reduce his property value by $30,000 and was not a good zoning compromise for the area. The least expensive home in his development was $169,000. Mr. Gefroh indicated there would be protective covenants on the property and the homes would be semi -custom or custom, and he felt they would be over $100,000. Member Walker recognized the City's policy to encourage mixed use • development and felt this proposal was not an abrupt change from the surrounding areas. Member O'Dell agreed. Member O'Dell moved to approve Overland Hills Subdivision and Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd Filing, with the four staff conditions. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried approving both items 7-0. GALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING, #36-90 Ken Waido gave the staff report on this 235 acre proposed annexation with zoning of 25 acres Highway Business, 143 acres Industrial Park, and 65 acres Planned Residential, with a Planned Unit Development condition. Staff is recommending Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to City Council. Member Strom questioned the irregular zoning boundaries. Eldon Ward, Cityscape, representing the applicant, explained the natural boundaries, as well as highway frontage road constraints, were used to determine the zoning boundaries. • -2- Jim Martel, representing Kitchell Properties to the north, indicated concerns • with the IP Zone. He described Kitchell as 16 five acre lots, four of which are sold, houses in the $150,000-200,000 range, zoned FA-1. The FA-1 Zone compares to the City's RE Zone and he suggested this zone or the T-Transition zone rather than IP. He felt there was no need for an industrial zone at this location although at a later date development may move east of the Interstate. It would be more appropriate to request the IP Zone at that time. Jan Lacy, property owner of property to the south, indicated she had not been notified. She added there were serious traffic problems in this area with almost daily accidents occurring at the I-25 overpass. She felt the plan condemned a whole established area by placing a commercial/industrial zone next to residential properties. Ken Kuhn, owner Lot 8, Kitchell Subdivision, stated he bought his property to have a large residential acreage and was opposed to the industrial zone and smaller lots proposed by this project. Chairman Klataske responded this annexation was being reviewed at the applicant's request, and not as an involuntary annexation by the City. Bill Jump, Homestead Estates property of hands to indicate the number of project. Chairman Klataske asked for people responded. owner, asked the Board request a show people in the audience here for this t show of hands and approximately 30 Richard Dunn, 5021 Kitchell Drive, stated he was not opposed to growth but • he was opposed to being in the City and the proposed industrial zoning. Chairman Klataske asked that Mr. Waido explain the IP, RE, and T zones. Mr. Waido indicated IP was for light industrial use occurring next to residential uses or along major arterials. The PUD condition insured future proposals would come to the Board so stricter landscaping and buffering could be required along the residential border. The RE Zone required a 2.3 acre lot size and the T-Transition Zone was used when the property owner wished to annex but not commit to any particular zoning district. No development could occur in the T Zone and the property owner's consent was required for the T Zone. Mr. Waido went on to state HB and IP Zones were appropriate given the proximity to the I-25 interchange. He added he thought the area was identified as industrial on the County Plan. The City felt, due to the importance of the I-25 Corridor, annexation of this property was important to insure development was governed by City requirements. Don Zimmerman, 1716 Carriage Lane south of the proposal, needed specific examples of light industrial. Mr. Waido sited Hewlett-Packard, NCR, and Teledyne as examples. He noted Woodward Governor and Anheuser-Busch were considered heavy industrial and went on to caution it was hard to generically classify development. The PUD condition would insure surrounding residences would be appropriately buffered. Mr. Zimmerman expressed concern that the people in the area be heard. Their • homes represented a valuable investment and needed to be considered. Larry Ekblad, 4701 E. Prospect, owner of 25 acres to the south, also expressed -3- 0 • concerns. He wished to see the master plan and wondered what would happen to the UGA. Chairman Klataske responded master plan review came later. Allen Guffey, 1725 Meadowaire Drive, Homestead Estates, moved to be in the country and was concerned when the UGA moved closer. He is now concerned about annexation. He felt there needed to be more consideration for current residents and a harder look at the development of light industry as far as a half mile east of the Interstate. Tim Vine, Berthoud, part owner of Kitchell Subdivision, felt this proposal brought industrial too close to residential properties and there needed to be some type of residential barrier dividing these properties. Cherrie Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire, was concerned and had questions regarding possible tenants and how the acreage was determined. Eldon Ward responded no specific tenants were identified. Physical constraints as well as existing policy and collector street possibilities determined zoning boundaries. He explained a collector street moved traffic within a development internally and to the outer edges. Some master planning had been done showing a series of transition or less intense uses for buffering between the larger industrial uses and the residences. The property would take many years to develop so he hesitated to identify specific uses but more intense uses would be nearer I-25. Traffic would not be introduced into residential areas. Mrs. Nichols noted residents wanted some say about how their area grew and her major concerns were increased proximity to the City, traffic concerns, • water and sewer, and what governs future. Mr. Ward stated that, when traffic increases warranted, a signal would be installed. Mr. Waido indicated the area was currently in Boxelder Sanitation District and Elco water. A major City trunk facility was proposed at Prospect and utilities would be extended when needed at a cost to the developer. Mrs. Nichols requested a transitional zoning so property owners could be assured of setbacks. Mr. Waido explained the PUD condition and the master plan, preliminary, and final phasing. He indicated no use would be allowed without Planning and Zoning Board approval. Jan Lacy asked when neighborhood needs would be addressed. Mr. Waido stated final decision of what locates where would be at preliminary and final plan stages. He added that industrial/residential/commercial development is not inherently incompatible with residential. Don Zimmerman questioned the notification procedure and Mr. Waido responded. Paul Eckman added the LDGS required notification of property owners within 500 feet. Member Carroll requested all questions be stated before the process of giving answers begin. Mr. Ekblad asked timing on enlarging Prospect Road from I-25 east to the -4- E Poudre River. • Barry Nichols, Homestead Estates, expressed concern with their neighborhood being annexed and felt they would lose the essence of why they moved to the area. Maryann Wood, 1733 Meadowaire Drive, liked her rural atmosphere and didn't want businesses as a neighbor. Paul Eckman read from annexation statute that this property must not be divided without the owner's consent since it is under one ownership. He added the LDGS makes no distinction between whether a property is inside or outside City limits regarding notification procedures or dealing with neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Waido indicated a traffic study would be required for Prospect Road and the City off -site street ordinance required a 38 foot pavement as a minimum. He went on to state the Board had several courses of action they could take and added the applicant would like to work with the property owners but needed some guidance from the Board. Member O'Dell understood citizen concerns and felt it was appropriate to have the FIB Zone and some IP Zone at I-25 and Prospect but not in the area to be newly incorporated in the UGA. The Board needed to be concerned about the transition between the existing residential and proposed IP Zone. • Member Strom generally agreed with Member O'Dell and added the IP Zone with a PUD condition provided more protection than the neighborhood realized. He added he would like to see this proposal zoned T-Transition or continued so the applicant could work further with the neighbors. Member Carroll agreed with Members O'Dell and Strom. He added the Board was not approving or disapproving development but, while approving a zoning district creates some , expectations, actual development depended on the applicant's proposals, zoning, and market trends. This was a large piece of property and he believed the T Zone or a continuance would give affected property owners time for dialogue. Mr. Eckman noted the petition could not be withdrawn and Mr. Waido stated the Board could not place the T Zoning on the property without the applicant's consent. Member Cottier agreed with the neighbors' concerns, feeling that abutting industrial to residential was not appropriate. Member Cottier moved to continue the proposal to the next meeting in hopes the developer could redefine appropriate boundaries. Mr. Eckman read from the code statements regarding the T Zone. Member O'Dell seconded the motion adding a condition that the applicant meet with interested property owners to discuss zoning and answer their questions. • Member Cottier accepted the amendment to her motion but felt it was treating the project as a master plan rather than a zoning. Member O'Dell felt it -5- 0 • would provide for an educational process on how annexation works. Member Walker agreed HB and IP Zoning was appropriate near I-25 and there • was a "place for all the pieces" but felt a closer look at issues was needed. He added the City encouraged mixed use and felt the PUD condition was a safeguard mechanism for the City and adjacent owners. Chairman Klataske felt the annexation with a PUD condition could be supported since residents would be assured an opportunity for input. Motion to continue Galatia Annexation and Zoning to the October meeting passed 7-0. HARMONY CORRIDOR Chairman Klataske asked if there would be any opposition to continue the Harmony Corridor Plan and its elements to Monday, September 30, at 6:30 PM. None existed so that item was continued. VICTORIA GABLES AT SILVERPLUME PUD - Preliminary. 063-89D Kirsten Whetstone gave the staff report recommending approval with a condition that the storm drainage issue be resolved prior to final. She noted this proposal would replace existing approval for 144 multi -family units with 40 paired units and complete development at Silverplume. Member O'Dell questioned what Rossborough Park to the south was used for and Ms. Whetstone replied it was open space for unstructured activities. • Member Carroll asked the status of the northern area and Ms. Whetstone noted it was developed and the southern area was covered by an approved PUD. Dick Rutherford, representing the applicant, reiterated the change of the boundary line to the north and the use of open space indicating the single -story paired housing would result in a dramatic reduction in density. • ME