Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/17/1998v C� The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Colton Roll Call: Weitkunat, Carpenter, Craig and Colton. Members Gavaldon and Davidson were absent: Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas: 1. 2. 3. #33-98 4. #40-98 5. #41-98 6. #42-98 7. #43-98 8. #43-98A 9. #43-98B 10. #43-98C 11. #43-98D 12. #44-98 13. #44-98B Discussion: 14. #15-98A 15. #34-97 16. #53-84L Minutes of the July 16, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Ryland Annexation and Zoning (Continued). Cathy Fromme Natural Area Annexation and Zoning. Pineridge 3rd Annexation and Zoning. Cottonwood Hollow Annexation and Zoning. Coyote Ridge 1'i Annexation and Zoning. Coyote Ridge 2nd Annexation and Zoning. Coyote Ridge 3rd Annexation and Zoning. Coyote Ridge 4" Annexation and Zoning. Coyote Ridge Vh Annexation and Zoning. Arapahoe Bend 1" Annexation and Zoning. Arapahoe Bend 2"d Annexation and Zoning. Recommendation to City Council on the Amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Lemay 3rd Annexation and Zoning. (Continued) Warren Farms Rezoning. Mr. Colton asked if there was anyone who wished to address Agenda Item 16. There was no public input for Agenda Item 16 and it was moved from discussion to the consent agenda. Sally Craig asked the Board to pull Agenda Items 7,8,9,10 and 11 from the consent agenda for Staff questions only. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 2 Leeann Harter asked that the Board include in the recommendations to City Council support for an amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundary for the Cathy Fromme Prairie Annexation. Moved by Ms. Weitkunat, seconded by Ms. Craig: To approve Agenda Items 1,2,4,5,6,12,13 and 16, and the amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundary for the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Motion passed unanimously. The remaining agenda for the evening consisted of Item 14, Amendment to the Fossil Creek Area Reservoir Plan and Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 — Coyote Ridge Annexation. Recommendation to City Council on the Amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Pete Wray, Advance Planning, spoke to the Board regarding Staff recommendation for Agenda Item 14. Staff felt the amendment was necessary to bring the adopted plan into conformance with the City Structure Plan. Mr. Wray stated that the Hansen, Renauld and Johnson properties would be affected. The amendment included adding two new land use designations to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, including medium density mixed -use neighborhoods and a neighborhood commercial center. Mr. Wray read the description of the policy statement for the proposed amendment. He discussed the proposed layout and location of the commercial center and the medium density housing. He explained that one of the main items that determined what would be an appropriate location for the commercial center was that it must be located on a main arterial street - Timberline being the main arterial to the area. Mr. Wray then explained the process that initiated the proposal to add the two land uses to the Fossil Creek Plan. He stated that prior to the Plan adoption, Doug Hansen had come forward and requested adding the proposed medium density housing and commercial center land uses for their property, immediately South of the Willow Springs development. After discussion by elected officials prior to Plan adoption, it was acknowledged that these uses were consistent with the City Structure Plan, and as a condition of approval, acknowledgment of these uses was added to the adoption of the Plan. He added, however, the addition of these acknowledgments was tabled with no final decision, and the Plan adoption proceeded, so that further public notification of the change could be provided. ti Planning and Zoning Boo • Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Wray said Planning acknowledged the concern received by many property owners and neighborhoods surrounding this area. Planning consented that this notice should be expanded and additional time provided for the proposal. Because of the concern, the hearing sequences were cancelled to allow for more time to work through the concerns that were raised. Three neighborhood focus groups were held to work through the concerns, as well as a public open house. The hearing sequences were then recommenced, set for Sept 17, Oct 5/6, and Oct 21. Mr. Wray pointed out that the original Plan process took over two years to develop and that other sites and locations had been looked at for medium density neighborhoods and a commercial center, but there were no other suitable locations. Ms. Craig asked for an example of what a "neighborhood commercial center" looks like. Mr. Wray used the Scotch Pines Shopping Center as the example. Public input on Item 14 was heard. Eric Renauld, property owner to the South and West of the proposed site of the commercial center and medium density housing, expressed his concern regarding the affect of the amendment specifically on his property and its value. He told the Board that the original notification of the commercial center's location was given as approx. 2 miles ENE of the present location. He stated that March of this year was the first they had heard of the new location and that no notification of the change had been given. He also questioned the commercial viability of the proposed center location with no access to the West and a collector street to the East with a steep hill and blind intersection. He also told the Board he felt there were lack of sufficient transitions between the proposed center location, the medium density housing and the rural estate properties. Also, a possible expansion of the existing Southridge Golf Course onto the Renauld property would make the location poor because it would put it within a couple hundred yards of the commercial center and medium density housing. He did not feel these concerns had been adequately addressed and that alternate locations for the center had not been considered in great detail. He suggested relocating the center to the opposite side of Timberline to alleviate some of the addressed problems. Tom Johnson, property owner to the South of the proposed location, expressed the same concerns regarding the center's location and the potential negative impact on his property value, as well as the notification problems. He explained too that the proposed medium density housing would be located on part of his property, with only a couple hundred yards from his newly constructed estate • home. His concern lay with the devaluation of his property. He told the Board Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 4 that further investigation of other sites should be done. He also indicated concern regarding potential dangerous access problems into the center from Timberline. He also suggested relocating the center to the opposite side of Timberline. Lisa Osborn of Willow Springs echoed the concerns of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Renauld regarding the center access from Timberline and the potential of increased traffic congestion in the area. She told the Board that the Planners had indicated that the center was not for the Willow Springs area but for the housing that would be going in to the east. She felt the center's location would not serve the housing it was being planned for. Rod Hansen spoke to the Board as the representative for the Hansen Family, whose property was sited for the center's proposed location. He told the Board of the three major reasons why the Hansen family supported the center's location. First that the City was growing tremendously to the SE and the center would be needed. Second that the location was outside the TDU program and located on a major North/South arterial, and by a "collector" and a "connector", being the best choice in the area. Finally, that the center plans were compatible with his family's future plans for the sale of the property in 10 to 15 years; the family was trying to be realistic in the growth that would occur in the area. Mr. Johnson addressed Mr. Hansen's point to the Board regarding the "future plans" and stating that if Item 14 was agreed upon with the 10-15 year plan, it would be locking his property in as well and he felt that would not be fair. Mr. Colton asked the Staff to address the public concerns including the question of the potential location and why it could not be moved, commercial viability, the steep hill at that location and its impacts, lack of western access, and the golf course conflict and impact. Mr. Wray said they tried to look at the entire SE area as it was now, and with future development in mind, and how it would best be served. He stated that the City Plan was developed to try to feather down the housing densities. He felt the TDU clearly identified the receiving area for Fossil Creek, and there was not an allowance for more intense land uses such as the medium density housing and a commercial center. He explained that the main purpose of Item 14 was to bring the Fossil Creek Plan consistent with the City Structure Plan. Wray stated that location issues had been addressed and other locations had been explored, but no street patterns worked out. • Planning and Zoning A • Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Carpenter asked Mr. Wray to address the notification process and why people were missed_ Mr. Wray explained that the Plan had been a two-year process, with extensive notifications and had included as many people as they could reach by mail. He admitted there were probably some owners that were missed due to glitches. He stated that recent mailing for the notification process had included owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Hansen property. He felt they had tried to give enough time for people to find out and spread the word about the happenings. He also felt that the issues raised had been worked through and many compromises had already been made to accommodate the concerns. Mr. Wray stated he felt Staff had taken it as far as they could and now was up to the elected officials at this time to make a consideration. Mr. Wray reiterated again that Item 14 was trying to bring consistency between the Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Plan and Staff was recommending that the Area Plan be amended to bring it into conformance. He stated that Item 14 was not a rezoning but a land -use designation policy plan only. The Structure Plan had always had provisions for these land -use designations. is Mr. Colton asked why the center couldn't be located elsewhere. He also expressed concern that the issue may need to be addressed with reevaluation in the future. Mr. Wray explained that the street plans do not work out anywhere else and locating the center across the road as suggested by public input was not consistent with the City Structure Plan. He again stressed that this was not a rezoning or annexation. Item 14 was just to bring the two plans consistent with each other and to allow for these future land uses to better serve the area in the long run. Russ Laid explained that the areas were set by a land use pattern based on the landowner/neighborhood setup. The TDU and Structure Plan was supposed to work together and that higher densities did not work currently with the TDU, but maybe in the future. Also that there were legal constraints with density shifting. Mr. Colton then asked for the affect on the Johnson property value to be addressed. Mr. Wray stated that many properties are affected and again stated that this was just to incorporate future land uses as part of a policy plan. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 6 Moved by Ms. Weitkunat, seconded by Ms. Craig: To recommend that the Board forward the Amendment on to City Council, the Larimer County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, to adopt Item 14 - Amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, as being consistent with the City Plan and the Structure Plan for building/planning a community in that area. Motion passed unanimously. Coyote Ridge 1" 2n° 3rd. 4!', and Wn, Annexation and Zonings Ms. Craig suggested tabling the Items in order to review a new packet of materials that had been received concerning the issues. Moved by Ms. Craig: Motion to continue the discussion to Oct 181 to get the chance to look over the new information. Ms. Harder stated Staff was willing to summarize the information for the Board and refer legal questions to Paul Eckman. She stated that the packet and letter received addressed why the natural resource areas need to be located within the city limits for legal reasons - so that the laws could be enforced by the rangers. She explained that trespassing was the primary problem. Mr. Eckman briefly reviewed the memo and stated that Tom Shoemaker had been advised by his office that there was a law stating if the property was open to the public, even if it is outside the city's jurisdiction, city laws could be enforced on it; but if it is not open to the public, the laws could not be enforced. He also stated that if the State Legislature happened to change that law, the City would then be at the mercy of the State Legislature. Ms. Craig asked why the area hadn't been opened to the public temporarily so that law enforcement could handle the problem. Ms. Harder explained that the Natural Resources Department had not yet completed its Wildlife Management Plan, which needed to be done before the area could be opened to the public. She stated that if the area fell within the city limits, rangers would then have the authority to control the incidence of trespassing, and thus be able to minimize the impacts and damage it was doing to the natural area. Ms. Craig asked why the Sheriff could not deputize the rangers. Mr. Eckman stated that the current Sheriff would not deputize. Planning and Zoning Bol Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 7 Ms. Craig withdrew the Motion. Mr. Colton expressed his concern with the issue of the UGA and amending it without further information and study. Mr. Eckman explained that the City can annex outside of the UGA boundary, using a provision from the Intergovernmental Agreement that if the County Commissioners were given 35 days notice, annexation could occur even outside the UGA boundary, and that the issues could be separated and presented as separate. Mr. Colton asked for other Board member opinions on the issue. Ms. Weitkunat stated that the decision was one of their responsibilities and should not be taken lightly. She felt that if the areas were important enough to purchase, then they were important enough to bring under jurisdiction. She felt that by postponing the decision, they were not meeting this responsibility. Mr. Colton again expressed his concerns regarding the UGA boundaries and voiced that he felt that circumstances regarding the UGA were not outlined • sufficiently to indicate when and if the UGA should be amended. Ms. Carpenter asked if the properties could be annexed without changing the UGA boundaries. Mr. Eckman explained again that, yes, it could be done and read a paragraph from Page 8 of the Intergovernmental Agreement, "the County agrees that the City in its sole discretion, may annex outside the Fort Collins UGA. The City agrees that proposed annexations outside the UGA be sent by certified mail to the Board of Commissioners for review and comment at least 35 days prior to the scheduled public hearing on the annexation." Mr. Eckman continued, stating that in the agreement, before it was redrafted, if the City annexed outside the UGA, it was an automatic amendment to the UGA boundary, but that that was no longer the case since it had been deleted from the Agreement, making it no longer automatic. Ms. Carpenter stated that she felt there were compelling reasons to proceed with the recommendation to annex and felt as a compromise, it could be done without amending the UGA boundary. She suggested further discussion and review in future meetings or work sessions to understand more what amending the UGA boundary might mean, and to create a public policy on this subject. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 8 Ms. Craig stated that she had problems with "flag -poling" Taft Hill and asked about the responsibility of the road maintenance and the impact trucks would have along that stretch. It was indicated by Rick and Dave that the county maintains that stretch of road, and that it had been built as a main arterial. The road is in good shape, and was built to withstand truck traffic. Ms. Craig then expressed concern regarding the funding impact of the road maintenance, citing the funding gap that this kind of "flag -pole" annexation causes. She also questioned how two rangers could cover over 432 acres of land, stating that trespassing would still occur. She also stated that there are natural areas outside the UGA and she did not see a need for annexation at this time. Mr. Colton asked Rick to verify the deficit figures on public record that Ms. Craig had cited. He also asked what impact, if any, the Cathy Fromme obligation would have. Rick confirmed the figures Ms. Craig had cited stating that the $3.1 million in deficit is street maintenance, covering issues like traffic signals, sweeping, and pavement. He estimated that the road would cost approximately $100/mile per year to maintain, and in 9 years, it would need an overlay, costing approximately $200,000. Rick stated he believed the cost of maintenance would probably become a 3-way shared venture between Loveland, the City, and the County. The Planning Director stated that there was no major impact on the UGA at this time for the area to be annexed. Ms. Weitkunat asked for a clarification, questioning if all the motions were for annexation only and if it was understood that by annexing, it wouldn't amend the UGA. She also requested clarification from Mr. Eckman as to if the Items could go individually or if they were contingent upon one another. Leeann responded that Staff reports had been in error as they stated that the annexations automatically amended the UGA boundary. The language in the IGA indicated that the Board would have to amend the UGA as a separate motion, but could indicate in a motion that the Board supported amending the UGA boundary. ' Planning and Zoning A • Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 9 • Mr. Eckman's response to Ms. Weitkunat's clarification was that the Board was to make a recommendation to Council only, so if their thoughts were the same on all the Items, he felt they could put them all into one vote. Mr. Colton asked for public input on the issue. Randy Sullivan, landowner boarding on Item 4 at address 6844 Hidden Springs Road came forward to voice his support for the annexation, but he also had concerns with how the land is to be used. His primary concern centered on the un-maintained portion of Trilby Road due to traffic problems that are getting worse. He explained that the County refused to maintain the road and that the maintenance was the responsibility of the homeowners. Mr. Colton asked Staff to address Mr. Sullivan's concern. Staff indicated the public access had not yet been determined and that it would be part of the Management Plan. Ms. Craig asked for the issue of Trilby Road to be addressed, asking if it would be part of the annexation, and, if the City would take it over. • Dave indicated that the road that Mr. Sullivan was speaking of was not part of Trilby Road, but a designation of the County put in to accommodate the development of the area. He stated that it was common for the County to require these roads be maintained by a HCA. He explained that if the road were part of the annexation, the City would maintain it. He also stated, however that it was the responsibility of the HOA to bring the road up to City standards, and that if the HOA did not bring the road up to City standards, they would continue to be responsible for its maintenance. Staff indicated that Trilby Road was not included in this annexation plat. Ms. Craig recommended Staff give Mr. Sullivan Mr. Shoemaker's name and number so that he could voice his concerns regarding this issue and go over it with him for future direction. Mr. Colton closed Public comment. Move by Ms. Weitkunat, no second: To approve recommendation for annexation on Items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 with responsibility of the City to maintain its natural areas, with no major bearing on the UGA. f Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 1998 Page 10 • Ms. Carpenter stated that she agreed with Ms. Weitkunat regarding the responsibility of maintenance, but not about the bearing, or lack of, on the UGA. Moved by Ms. Carpenter, seconded by Mr. Colton: To recommend annexation of Items 1, 2, 4, 6 and 6 without the UGA, and pending with further discussion and research on the amending of the UGA. Motion split 2-2. Mr. Colton again voiced his concern with the annexation, especially regarding the responsibility of the road maintenance issue, and the "flag -pole" annexation approach that was being taken. He did not feel as though a clear and informed decision was being made regarding the Items. Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: That no recommendation be made to Council tonight, with motion to continue until October V to see if further information could be gathered on the issue so the Board may make an informed decision. Motion split 2-2. Mr. Colton declared the Items would be sent on to the City Council with no • recommendation from the Board, noting that the Board supports conservation and laws in the natural areas, but that there were some concerns some Board members would still like to have addressed. No further business. Meeting adjourned.