Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/10/1988r 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1988 MINUTES The meeting began at 12:10 p.m., in the Council Chambers at new City Hall. Members present included Dave Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd W11kcr, Jan Shepard and Jim Klataske. Staff included Joe Frank, Rick Ensdorff, Barbara Hendrickson and Paul Eckman. Chairperson O'Dell noted that this was a special meeting and asked Mr. Frank to give a presentation. Joe Frank stated that there was one item on the agenda, that was to consider a resolution to Council adopting and approval of a reservation plat. The property would be reserved for future acquisition for public street purposes. 'I he reservation process in State Statutes, required approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City Council will establish a Board of Appraisers, and hold a hearing to establish the value of property will be reserved. A hearing will be held to give an opportunity for evidence and materials to be submitted. The apprais- ers will report back to Council on the property value. Council then will make a final decision whether or not to. reserve the property. The subject property was 5.3 acres in size and located in Evergreen Industrial Park, in north Fort Collins, cast of College and north of Conifer Street. Last summer, the owner, James Bessctt, approached the City about building an office. The City identified the property as part of the State of Colorado's proposed alignment for the Fort Collins Expressway. A discussion started between the owner and developer as to options. Those included purchase of the property, condemnation of the property, utilize the state statute of reservation or allow Mr. Bessctt to develop the property. Staff believed that the property was an essential part of the approved expressway alignment. It was the Staff's recommendation to obtain a reservation of the property at this time to reduce the ultimate cost to the state. The State does not have the same authority as the City to reserve property. Staff would examine the option of a ]case agreement in lieu of the reservation. II the City did enter into a lease agreement, it would be less time consuming and cumbersome than the required reservation process. Staff' would request Council to grant authorization to proceed with a lease. The Staff has been successful at this point regarding the proposed lease and has arrived at a figure acceptable to both parties. The meeting this afternoon would be to adopt the Bessctt Reservation and set a time period for it's acquisition. This item will be presented to Council, with the Board's recommen- dation, next Tuesday. Planning and Zoning Board Special Meeting November 10, 1988 Page 2 Mr, Eckman explained that the Statute would require a Board of Appraisers, who would set the property value after filing of claims. The City would be able to change it's mind during the process. If the City decided to abandon the property before compensation was fixed, the City would pay Bcssctt's expenses, such as travel, filing fees, lawyer, and probably appraisers. The Law Dcpalt- ment does not construe expenses to be damages. Mr. Bessett could appeal the decision of appraisers to the District Court and during the period of reserva- tion (5 years), he could still receive building permits and be able to construct improvements. However, if the State condemns at a future time, they would not have to pay for those improvements. He felt it was unlikely the owner would build at such a risk. Chairperson O'Dell asked if Mr. Bessett or an associate was present. Mr. Frank replied no. He stated Mr. Bessett was notified of this meeting. Member Walker stated he needed more information on the reservation process. He asked if this was a fee to allow a right to this property. Mr. Eckman replied it was a fee we pay for the right to acquire property for a period of time which was established without paying for improvements dur- ing that period of time. Member Walker asked if the value set by appraisers now reflects what we would have to pay for it, or would it be appraised again in 5 years. Mr. Eckman replied that the City would not pay fair market value for fcc simple title. We would pay fair market value for the purchase of the property at a future date. Member Walker stated he had no sense of dollar value on which to base his judgement. Mr. Eckman asked if the Board would like to adjourn into an Executive Ses- sion to discuss negotiations. Mr. Walker asked how the ]case option would be different. Mr. Eckman stated he was hopeful a lease would be a broader application than the reservation. Staff would prefer to negotiate a lease in order that the owner could not build at all during the specified period. Member Walker asked if the lease was a more expeditious process. Mr. Eckman replied yes, and that Mr. Bessett might like it better. If the property was important to the City, then they can try to reserve it or they can negotiate a ]case. Planning and Zoning Board Special Meeting November 10, 1988 Page 3 Mr. Frank stated that if the Board believed that the property should be reserved in some manner, they should go ahead and approve this reservation option, but if the Board desired another option, they may also recommend a lease arrangement. Member Walker asked that whether they reserve or ]case, would not the City be assisting the State. Mr. Eckman answered that the State had no funds at this time. Mr. Ensdorff told the Board that the City has the tools to acquire the property to preserve the Expressway alignment. Member Walker asked if the property was reserved, in whatever form, will the State reimburse the City at some time, because we will have in effect saved them money. Mr. Ensdorff stated that there were no guarantees. Member Walker asked if the owner develops and State states that the property was in the corridor, was it the State's problem to purchase it. . Mr. Ensdorff replied that first, the State already had said this property was in the corridor and secondly, we could ]cave the land open and the State would pay the cost to acquire it if developed or vacant. Member Walker asked if the City would do this, why not get an assurance from the State that we will be reimbursed. Mr. Ensdorff replied the State has no mechanism to provide for a guarantee. Member Walker stated that maybe the state should pay the full price. Mr. Ensdorff noted that the State has said this property was an important element in the expressway but could offer no guarantee of reimbursement. The State did say they would try every way to make reimbursement. Mr. Eckman asked if the State had indicated reimbursement. Mr. Ensdorff answered they have, verbally through the District Engineer, stated they will try to reimburse whenever they would be able. Member Edwards stated that the reservation would not be unlike an option to purchase. He wondered how all this was prompted. He understood that Mr. Bcssett came to the City to get building permits and the City saw it was in line with the Expressway/Parkway. He asked what would happen if all prop- erty owners adjacent to the alignment dream up development which could go on their property. He thought that it was conceivable that the development which prompted this was the G.S.A. building for which they have seen a Planning and Zoning Board Special Meeting November 10, 1988 Page 4 number of other proposals and the reality of something being done on the property was minimal. Mr. Ensdorff replied that other developments in the corridor would require review. This property was extremely key to any transportation, irregardless if it was the Expressway or a City arterial. The State was in the middle of a Supplement Environment Study on this area. This site works for all solutions. The preliminary design was from 400' east of College Avenue and this property was key to what happens. There was potential for other owners to come in, but Staff would not look at those in the same way, as many would not be as critical. Member Edwards asked if the alignment alternatives were moot, as the State had gotten into the design mode on other parts of the Expressway/Parkway. He asked how far into the whole design was the City and the State. Mr. Ensdorff replied that this part of the corridor was not under restudy, while the Lemay to I-25 was under restudy. There were no funds except to complete planning of the corridor, east of Lemay. All work done was complete on the corridor option. Reservation was the way to keep options open and not incur additional costs in this area. This was a process with some unknowns. Member Walker asked who will incur costs. Mr. Ensdorff stated that there will ultimately be some costs to the City, but the direct cost will be to State of Colorado. Member Walker believed that the Planning and Zoning Board was in the middle. He stated the Board will preclude the possibility of development by paying someone to hold on to land for 5 years which may not be needed and will need to be re -negotiated. He stated he needed a sense of dollar value and have a better handle as to what the Board would recommend. Mr. Eckman asked the Board if they would like to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss the real estate acquisition, as Council does, especially since they would make a recommendation to Council Chairperson O'Dell believed it to be a good idea. Member Edwards asked if the responsibility of the Board was to consider economic aspects or should it be Council's sole right. He asked if the Board's job was to review land use, irrespective of dollars. Mr. Eckman read from the Statute which stated the Commission (P & Z Board) can cause to be made surveys for lines of street of the City and make a plat of the surveyed area. The Board could recommend the property to be reserved for future acquisitions. The Statute provides no basis of criteria on which to make a recommendation. Member Walker stated he needed more information about lease options Planning and Zag Board Special Meeting • November 10, 1988 Page 5 I* Mr. Eckman stated it may be helpful to the Board if they knew what negotia- tions have occurred. Member Edwards moved to adjourn into Executive Session. Motion seconded by Member Klataske. Motion passed 5-0. The meeting reconvened at 1:51 p.m. Mr. Eckman stated for the record, that the topics discussed in Executive Session were real estate negotiation of a lease option, and legal issues associated with proceeding with the reservation. Chairperson O'Dell concurred with Mr. Eckman the list of items discussed in Executive Session. Member Shepard stated the alignment has had preliminary approval for 400' cast of College, then head west and connect to the LaPorte Bypass on Highway 287. Mr. Ensdorff stated the location is halfway between Shields and LaPorte Ave. on Highway 287. Member Shepard went on to say that the letter to Mr. Bessett from Doug Ramos, State District Engineer stated that if the facility east of College is not built, the interchange at College and Conifer won't be needed and this property is unaffected. She asked if the Board was considering the reservation because of the potential plan from College to the Interstate, whereby the State will come up with the money. Mr. Ensdorff replied yes Member Shepard asked if the Board does this reservation or lease and if at the end, a plan exists which says there will be an expressway from College, going through this property and on east to 1-25, but no time line, will the Board need to do something such as extending the lease or ROW agreement. Mr. Ensdorff replied yes, there are a variety of options but the Board will need to re -assess their recommendation at that time. Member Shepard asked if, in the final plan stage, that this is the property needed, will they still need a reservation plan. Mr. Ensdorff replied that if there is a final design, they can purchase it out -right. Member Klataske asked if they had to use 5 years or can they hold it longer Mr. Eckman stated that the longer the time, the more the cost. He stated that December 1, 1993 was selected by Staff, but the Board can recommend any time. Planning and Zoning ",ard Special Meeting November 10, 1988 Page 6 Member Klataske asked if the Board can cancel after 3 years with no more cost either through reservation or lease. Mr. Eckman replied that there was no statute for cancellation, only that the Board shall recommend time with an expiration date. He did not believe the Board could cancel and not pay for the remaining time, but he thought that point could be argued. He said the Board could possibly reserve the property on a yearly basis with maximum of 5 years. The statute doesn't provide for a cancellation. The lease would be more flexible and secure, with a way out if owner agreed. Most of the time the owner wants a specified time and you end up paying for the full term of lease anyway. Member Klataske stated that the reservation doesn't preclude a negotiated lease. Member Edward asked if he was correct in thinking that if they recommend the reservation to Council, Council then selects the appraisers, spends the money and ultimately decides if they want to enter into a reservation based on the appraisers. He asked if Council could still cancel the deal. Mr. Eckman stated that after this hearing, the plat was transmitted to the governing body (Council) who may then approve and adopt, reject or modify with the approval of the Board. If Council wishes to modify the plan, they can with Board approval. Council may also override the Board's recommend- ation by a 2/3 vote. Once the appraisers make this report, the Council can also cancel the proceedings. Member Edwards stated that the Board was being asked to determine whether the property is important in a long term transportation planning perspective. Member Shepard asked Mr. Frank to encourage development in the North proposed location of the Expressway. comment on the planning objective to College Corridor with respect to the Mr. Frank replied that the Goals and Objectives document encouraged growth in north Fort Collins and east of College. He believed the industrial develop- ment, Anheuscr Busch, and the Expressway support this policy. Member Shepard wondered if staff was giving up on the North College Corri- dor, if there was just the Expressway and mobile home parks on the north end of College Avenue. Mr. Frank stated this will be the entry area for North College and the down- town area and believes it will spur re -development by providing access and improved traffic flow. He stated he saw no negative impact except to prop- erty in the alignment of the Expressway. Chairperson O'Dell asked the record to show no public input. Member Walker stated he had some serious concerns about the whole process. He thought it useful but also believed they were dealing with two vague entities, Bessett and his intentions and the State and their intentions. The r Planning and Zt*g Board Special Meeting . November 10, 1988 Page 7 Board needs to do what is best for the City. He said this is an insurance -type gamble he was not sure was worth taking. He was not in favor of lease/reservations. He thought the cost incurred was unreasonable for the City to take up. Member Edwards moved for adoption of Resolution 88-8 with a lease option. He stated the Board was asked to determine whether or not this property was important in respect to transportation planning. Member Klataske seconded the motion as he believed it was appropriate. He said that if it does become a City arterial, it will save money and its existence will help the North College Corridor. Mr. Eckman suggested that the wording of the Resolution include that the Board further recommend that staff negotiate a lease agreement acceptable to the City in lieu of the final reservation process. Chairperson O'Dell asked if a time limit was needed on those negotiations Mr. Eckman stated no. Member Edwards stated the key word was to "ask" that Council consider an alternative of a lease option. . Member Walker agreed to the importance of the wording of the recommend- ation, but would like to keep it more tentative. He suggested it was a good idea but preferred to say "consideration" be given to some method of acquiring use by the City. Member Edwards asked if the Board needed to be so specific as to designate December 1, 1993. He stated that by referring this to Council, the Board would call attention to the importance of the location of this property, but Council may determine that the cost benefit elements are not sufficient to warrant going through this process with the appraisers. With the recommend- ation, we would move it forward and call attention to it, as it is for the good of the City, irrespective of the developer or State as it may be a City arterial and have nothing to do with the State. Mr. Eckman stated the problem was that the Statute requires a fixed time, which was needed to make the recommendation to Council. Member Edwards asked if the time frame would bind where subsequent rescr- vations and appraisers were concerned, as the Council could determine the time frame to be 10 years, for example. Mr. Eckman stated that the Board's estimate was considered by Council and they would approve and adopt, reject, or modify with approval. Once Council passed it, it would need to be specific as to the time frame. He asked if it would be in the Board's best interest to extend the time frame. He said if the time frame became part of the lease/appraisal, Council could amend or modify that time frame. Planning and Zoning and Special Meeting November 10, 1988 Page 8 Member Edwards asked if the wording could say, December 1, 1993, or such other time/year as Council might deem appropriate. Mr. Eckman stated he could not advise from legal standpoint, but staff needed to feel comfortable with time frame and their recommendation. He said the Board could give advance approval to any modifications Council may wish to make. That would save time having to come back to P & Z for approval. It maybe a good idea to say whatever modification Council wants to make in regards to time frame, be pre -approved by the Board. Member Edwards asked that this information be incorporated into the motion. Chairperson O'Dell asked Mr. Eckman if the Board needed to be presented with the exact wording of the revised resolution or can they pass it with general ideas. Mr. Eckman stated if it contained the general idea was unanimous, then it would be appropriate. Motion to approve Resolution 88-8 with the revisions passed 4-1, with Member Walker voting no. Meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m if