Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/17/2006Liaison: Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (W) 491-2579 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Fries, Stockover, Schmidt, Rollins, Smith and Lingle. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Bracke, Maizland, Wray and Deines. Citizen Participation: None Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent Agenda Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 20(Continued), May 18 (Continued), June 15 (Continued) and July 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZO6-09 — Easement Dedication. 3. #18-02C Caribou Apartments — Project Development Plan. Discussion Items: 4. #19-04 Recommendation to City Council to Amend the Land Use Code to Add the Rural Lands Zoning District. Staff requested Item 3, Caribou Apartments be moved from the consent agenda to the discussion items. Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Item 1, July 20, 2006 minutes only. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Rollins abstaining due to not being present at that hearing. Member Schmidt moved to approve Consent Item 2, Easement Dedication. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 2 Project: Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan (PDP) — #18-02C (Re -submitted) Project Description: Caribou Apartments is a Project Development Plan (PDP) for a 193 dwelling unit residential complex located at the southwest corner of South Timberline Road and Caribou Drive. The project is located on 10.8 acres of land and will yield a gross residential density of 17.0 units/acre. The six multi -family buildings will be arranged into two — 20 unit buildings, two — 32 unit buildings and two — 44 unit buildings. A clubhouse building, with 1 dwelling unit and recreation amenities, is also included with the project. The buildings will range from two to three stories in height. Off- street parking will be provided in both surface parking stalls and detached garage structures. There currently is a single-family residence on the property. This house is not incorporated into the site plan and will be razed. The property is zoned E — Employment District. This is a qualified affordable housing project, with 45% of the dwelling units affordable to households at 50% to 60% of the Area Medium Income (AMI). A subdivision plat is accompanying the PDP. This plat will create a tract upon which the project will be developed and dedicate all necessary rights -of -way and easements to support the project. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner, Steve Olt, provided contextual site information. This project is located at the southwest corner of South Timberline Road and Caribou Drive. A Project Development Plan for this project was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in January 2003 for essentially the same project —193 dwelling units on 10.8 acres. Associated with that was a modification of the standard in the E — Employment Zoning District, wherein it is stated that residential uses can consist of no more than 25% of a development plan. The approval lapsed because the Applicant did not move forward with it. The Caribou Apartments, PDP has expired because the Term of Vested Right, set forth in Section 2.2.11(C) of the LUC, has not been satisfied in a timely manner. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 3 Staff is evaluating the modification request that has been submitted by the Applicant and believes that with the 113 acres that include Collindale Business Park and Horsetooth East Business Park and this residential use, that it would meet the requirement that secondary uses in this zone district shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. Staff believes that by considering the Horsetooth East, Collindale Business Park and this PDP, the percentage of secondary uses is 24.4%, just under the maximum for the district. Regardless of whether or not it meet or exceeds the 25% requirement is moot based on the fact that the modification request would supersede that, if approved. Staff is recommending the approval of the modification request to Section 4.22(D)(2) of the LUC submitted. In addition, this is qualified as a 45% affordable housing project which is one of the criteria that can be used for justification for a modification of standards and obviously was in this case. Staff has evaluated the PDP against the City's Land Use Code, Article 3, General Development Standards. These standards deal with landscaping, site planning, parking, engineering, and all the natural resource issues. This project is north of an existing significant wetland. The project was evaluated against the impacts of that wetland. We've also evaluated it against the E — Employment Zoning District, division number 4.22. There are permitted land use and development standards in that Zoning District. Staff has determined that the project, with that one exception, is in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Land Use Code, recommends approval of the modification to the standard for the residential uses and the Project Development Plan. Doug Wagner, representing the Applicant, stated that the project presented in 2003, did not proceed because of market conditions. He then discussed a letter received from a homeowner addressing five areas of concern regarding the development and the wetlands in the area. Those concerns are: (1) the measures being taken to prevent runoff from the developed area after the moisture -retaining sod is removed and covered with asphalt and concrete; (2) the placement of a 100-foot buffer between the marsh and the development; (3) a line of trees that would assist in buffering the marsh; (4) a sturdy fence; and (5) a concern about increased traffic on Timberline caused by the development. In response to those concerns, applicant Wagner and his civil engineer, Mike Overlander, responded. First, no project developed is allowed to contribute more water into a drainage area than the historic rate of runoff that was allowed from that site. The plans were submitted to the City Engineering Department and approved several years ago. The applicant is looking at a 2-year storm as the event as opposed to a 100 year storm. In response to the second item of concern, a 100-foot buffer, a buffer was required early in the project along the south portion of the site. The applicant stated large spruce trees that are on the farmhouse site will be moved down to the buffer zone, satisfying the third area of concern in the letter. If any of those trees die, the applicant will replace them on a two -to -one basis. To address the fourth area of concern, the applicant has added an open split -rail fence with wire screening for small animal fencing. That fence will extend along the entire southern boundary and is contiguous with the marsh area. In response to the traffic impact, applicant stated they have worked with staff, conducted traffic studies and worked with the City Engineers to ameliorate traffic issues. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 4 Chair Lingle asked Steve Olt if other than some surface parking or garage changes, if the proposal is identical to that approved in 2003? Olt responded that it's almost identical, except that two garage structures have been eliminated to create additional surface parking. Member Fries asked if it was city policy to build over wetlands. Doug Moore responded that there will be no construction occurring in the wetlands on this project. Public Participation Jan Winther lives at 4323 South Timberline Road. Their house borders the property that borders the south side of the Timberline wetlands. Winther listed the following concerns related to the Caribou Apartments PDP: increased traffic, increased difficulty turning left out of her property driveway, building height, water drainage, and matters of trust regarding landscaping and other features that were promised by previous developers and never completed. Richard Winther also lives at 4323 South Timerline. His concerns related to whether or not the water coming off the Caribou Apartments' parking lots will raise the water table and cause an increase in the number of mosquitoes. He asked if a holding pond would be built. Mr. Winter also expressed concerns regarding an entrance on to Timberline Road from the apartments and felt that more traffic congestion would be created. Charles Draper lives at 1924 Harmony Drive. His concern was that the garages are going to be inside the buffer instead of outside the buffer. Eric McIntyre lives at 4303 Gemstone Lane. He questioned whether the rezoning of an employment district is logical given the recent downsizing by several major employers in Fort Collins. Lynn Morales lives at 4120 Stone Creek Drive. Ms. Morales stated that Fort Collins has changed from its former small town atmosphere to more of a SUV kind of place. She believes there is no need for another apartment complex given the glut of housing in the city at this time. She believes house prices are depreciating. Furthermore, she is concerned because of the increase in traffic. She also stated that she doesn't believe Fort Collins needs the effects to the wetlands caused by further development because these wetlands are so vital to our ground water, our wildlife, and our quality of life and air quality. Chair Lingle asked that staff or the applicant address some of the concerns addressed by the public. Specifically, he asked Eric Bracke to address traffic and direct access on to Timberline. Staffmember Bracke stated that when a new development is proposed, traffic considerations are reviewed. Capacities are reviewed at signalized intersections and stop sign controlled intersections. Caribou and Timberline is the key intersection for this development. It currently meets the city's level of service standards into the short and long-range future. Based on that, traffic finds that it is acceptable. Eventually, Timberline will be a six -lane major arterial with a median. At that time, access in and out of the Winther's property will be a right-in/right-out only. Chair Lingle then asked Mike Overlander of Northstar Design to discuss storm drainage. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 5 Mike Overlander stated that he has completed the civil engineering on this project since its beginning. He clarified several items from the applicant presentation. He said this property is against the Timberline Sump, which is a storm water owned facility. This is a regional pond. The project will drain into the sump. The developer is required to have the ultimate release rate from the development be at a two-year historic storm. They are adding about 2.7 acre feet to the pond. Additionally, when Timberline Road is turned into a six -lane roadway, the embankment of Timberline will encroach considerably into this detention area, to about .7 acre feet. They plan to put the embankment out to where it needs to be now for the future roadway so that in 15 or 20 years no modifications are required. The developer feels they have put the pond in its final configuration for perpetuity and for the future extension of Timberline Road to the south. The 2.7 acre feet of volume will be added to the south. They will not be excavating within the wetlands area at all. The embankment to Timberline will remove .7 acre feet and the required detention to get the 2 year historic is 2 acre feet. Chair Lingle asked if the described improvements are at the same level as those approved in 2003, or if there are some enhancements. Mike Overlander responded that the only changes to the drainage and erosion control plan were some updates to the erosion control requirements that the Storm Water Department has made. Doug Moore, City's Natural Resource Planner, discussed fencing. He stated that fencing is not required for this project. But, after receiving the residential letter, the applicant is willing to install fencing. They will install a western two -rail fence with wire behind it to keep small dogs and other animals from entering. Chair Lingle asked if Staff Moore would characterize this as being the same proposal from an environmental protection standpoint as in 2003, or if there are enhancements that have been added. Moore responded that he considered the fence an enhancement. They used the garages to provide a buffer. He also believed that by removing one of the garages, a better situation has been created. The Land Use Code allowed the developer to increase or improve the habitat. They have added a lot of Fort Collins native species and are removing the invasive species. They have also added other plant material which will provide more cover, screening and food sources for the birds and animals using the area. They believe the buffer has been greatly enhanced. Member Schmidt asked, in response to the public's statement that landscaping sometimes does not happen, if the recourse for that is zoning enforcement. Staffmember Moore stated that he also gets involved with that. In addition to development review, he inspects the project during construction. There is also language in the development agreement which states that seeds and vegetation will be monitored for two to three years. They do hold escrow for landscaping. They can hold additional escrow on projects for habitat improvements, but he doesn't feel it is necessary on this project. Member Fries asked staffmember Moore who is responsible for maintaining the fence after it is built. He stated, the HOA is, if there is one. He is not sure if there will be an HOA for this development. If not, the owner is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the project Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 6 and the buffer area. The owner can also apply through the Natural Area Program to be a Certified Natural Area. In that case, Natural Area provides a grant program to add additional incentives. He has discussed that with the applicant. Member Fries asked about affordable housing and the fact that with the added expenses, does it now become unaffordable housing. Mr. Moore said he generally does not become involved in that, but it is his understanding that the project is still meeting the classification for affordable housing. He suggested that applicant might be better suited to discuss that. Chair Lingle asked if there were any requirements in the Land Use Code or Development Guidelines that require a feasibility study to determine the need for a project like this. Steve Olt responded that there is nothing in the Land Use Code that permits the city to evaluate a project based on its marketability. He said the property owner has done his own market studies and is moving forward based on their findings. Chair Lingle asked if there is anything that would grant us permission to evaluate the project based on whether or not we feel there is a market for it or not. Attorney Eckman responded that it would exceed the jurisdiction of the Planning & Zoning Board, and there is no authority for it in the Land Use Code. Chair Lingle then requested that the applicant address the market need for the development and the reasons why they perceive it should proceed at this time when it wasn't feasible in 2003. Applicant Doug Wagner responded that they going through the zoning approval process now. Once that is completed they will have to prove to the lenders that there is a market. It is necessary to take first steps first. Chair Lingle asked Steve Olt to address the question about building height. Steve Olt responded that conventional standards in the E — Employment Zoning District states that maximum height for residential buildings shall be three stories. This is a story limit, not a foot height limit. The buildings in the development have two-story elements on the ends with a three-story element in the middle. Member Schmidt stated she felt the applicant and the Natural Resources Planner did a good job of making the site plan cognizant of all the natural features and did the best they could to mitigate any of the consequences. She felt that the traffic on Timberline is what it is, and there is going to be a re -adjustment that people have to make who drive on Timberline. She felt the project should move forward so that the trees that are going to be moved have a better chance of survival. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the modification for the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan 18-02C, based on the facts and findings in the staff report on Section 28.2(H)(2), that granting this modification would significantly alleviate an existing and defined described problem and city-wide concern; that namely being the affordable housing and that it is not detrimental to the public good. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 7 Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Project Development Plan for the Caribou Apartments No. 18-02C based on the facts and findings in the staff report, starting on page 14. Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. Member Schmidt stated that she would like Cameron to arrange that there could be a discussion in a future work session to discuss the percentage of same type buildings on ten acre lots. In this case, there are two building types; most buildings are one type and the clubhouse is another building type. Cameron Gloss responded that he would. Project: Recommendation to City Council to Amend the Land Use Code to add the Rural Lands Zoning District (RUL), #19- 04. Project Description: Request to create a new Zone District in the Land Use Code Article 4, Division 4.1, the Rural Lands District (RUL), that would be applied to areas designated as "Rural Lands" as well as privately -owned properties designated as "Community Separator" on the Structure Plan map at the time of annexation into the City. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Pete Wray, Senior Planner gave the staff presentation and stated that as a result of this action, this item also includes a revised numbering of all other Divisions in Article 4, an amendment to Section 3.9.2 to allow single-family detached dwellings in the RUL District to be developed within one -quarter (1/4) mile of 1-25, and lastly, an amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and City Structure Plan maps land use designation. Planner Wray stated that the Land Use Code to date has lacked a zone to reflect the private Rural Lands and Community Separator designation policy language in City Plan. The closest rural and estate residential zone that we have to date is the Urban Estate, which reflects large lot estate residential, but it also goes up to a maximum of 2 units per acre or half acre lots. For years we have received a lot of comments that did not truly capture some of the larger lot rural residential development pattern that we have, particularly in the edges and fringe of our community. In 2004 when we updated City Plan, as part of the city's Structure Plan Map we added for the first time this new land use designation. Since we did not have a zone in place for Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 8 this type of development or open areas, we had to place properties in the T, Transition zoning. We have some examples in our Growth Management boundaries where we have had to place privately managed lands within T, Transition because we did not have this zone in place yet. This new Rural Lands zoning will fill this void. In City Plan there is a general purpose statement that describes the Rural Lands and those talk about limited estate residential along our edges and also overlaying on top of portions of our Community Separator designation on the Structure Plan Map. These are privately managed lands. To further expand on the RUL zoning, private lands provide the rural edge of our community, and there is some overlap with our Community Separator designation on the Structure Plan Map. This is for large lot residential or clustered residential as an option; agricultural activities and also natural areas, buffers and other lands that are privately managed. A summary of the specific language that the Board has before them is for single family detached dwellings as a base of 10 acre minimum lot size. We do provide an option for clustered residential based on a density of 2.3 acres per dwelling unit clustered on 20% of the property. This would leave 80% privately managed open space. Other non-residential uses include golf courses, cemeteries, horse related activities and other agricultural uses. We also have further implemented the protection of the Fort Collins/Loveland airport critical areas particularly on the north side of the runway on the south side of Carpenter Road (State Hwy 392) where we do not allow residential within the designated airport critical area. Planner Wray provided a visual map showing the specific Rural Land Designations that are reflected on the city Structure Plan Map. He pointed out the three main areas; in the southeast quadrant of the GMA north of the Fossil Creek Reservoir, the beige areas were the designated Rural Lands; in the southwest quadrant we have a small area west of Shields Street designated; the third key area is in the northwest just inside the GMA on the eastern flanks of the LaPorte area. Planner Wray stated that there were a number of other related amendments associated with creating this new Rural Lands District. In placing this district in the beginning of the residential section of Article 4, that would be the new 4.1, we would need to renumber the sequence of the Divisions in Article 4. Another amendment we have associated with this new District is in Article 3 and in the 1-25 Corridor Standards it does not allow single family residential within Y. mile of I- 25. What we discovered with the Rural Lands designation, is there are several properties that are within the Y, mile setback that would be completely included in the'/4 mile restriction. Staff believes there should be additional language in Article 3 to exempt the Rural Lands zoning from that restriction so there would be reasonable development potential left on those properties. There is also an amendment to the Fossil Creek Area Plan for a particular property just on the southeast corner of County Road 36 and 1-25 that was brought to our attention just this last year from the property owner that both the city Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Area Plan continue to show this property as Rural Lands. In the County it has been zoned FA-1. When we developed the Fossil Creek Area Plan in 1995, which was jointly adopted by the city and the County, it was not brought to staffs attention then. In working with County staff, this property Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 9 was rezoned commercial in 1995 and with the update of City Plan in 1997 and again in 2004, again it was not brought to staff's attention that that particular property was now zoned commercial with conditions in the County. Staff believes it is appropriate to change this specific property from the Rural Lands to the commercial designation both on the city Structure Plan map and the Fossil Creek Area Plan. There are two other amendments to the Fossil Creek Area Plan based on that change there is a land use table in the Fossil Creek Plan that tabulated the land use acreage breakdown of the residential and commercial designations, so the acreage counts needed to be switched. The existing County zoning map in the Fossil Creek Area Plan needs to be changed. Those are the listed related amendments to coincide with the creation of this new Rural Lands zoning. Member Schmidt had a question on the language on Page five that states "80% of the residual gross land proposed shall remain in private ownership as private open space protected by restricted covenants for the benefit of the city". "For the benefit of the city' is used in a couple of other places and she was wondering what that meant. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that staff wanted to make it so the city had the ability to enforce those covenants as a third party beneficiary at least if not as a party itself; if the city is not a party it could be named as a given third party beneficiary status so it could enforce those covenants without having to go to one of the parties to try and persuade them to enforce the covenants. Chairperson Lingle asked if that was consistent with other zoning districts for private open space. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that we do have a number of covenants that are executed that give the city enforcement privileges even though the city is not a party to them. Public Participation None. Member Schmidt asked about the letter from Lucia Liley and the reference to the fact that they might disagree for the need for this zoning district. Planner Wray replied that staff has met several times within the past six months with the property owners of the Kechter Farm, which is on the north side of the Fossil Creek Reservoir just west of the Fossil Lake Ranch Subdivision, and was a part of the Kinard property that they sold to the School District. Their initial concerns were how this new zoning could affect their property. They are in the process of negotiating development on the property and they wanted to be assured that this new zoning would not impact their existing entitlements in the County. In the Fossil Creek Area Plan there was a TDU program established and their property is within the TDU receiving area. We have an agreement with the County to defer annexation of those Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2006 Page 10 properties until such time that the TDU has been finalized in the County and they have final approval through the County process. They wanted to be sure that first this new zoning would not jeopardize or impact the potential development process through the County. Staff has clarified that this new zoning would not be in place until such time as they final approval in the County through a county process and it would be annexed after the final approval and this zoning would be placed on the property at the time of annexation. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the new Rural Lands District and the amendments, #19- 04. All the recommendations includes the approval of the Rural Land Use District; approval of the amendment to Article 4 of the Land Use Code of Divisions; approval of the amendment to Section 3.9.2 of the Land Use Code to allow single family detached dwellings in the RUL district within a Y. mile of 1-25; approval of Amendment to Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and approval of amendments to the city Structure Land Use designation. Based on the Facts and Findings of the staff report starting on Page 7. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Schmidt commented that staff has worked on this a long time and felt they have done a good job. She thought that this zone will do a good job of buffering on the edges where we need it. The motion was approved 7-0. Other Business: There was discussion among the Board members regarding the need to be provided with full- size renderings and drawings. Member Fries stated they were bulky and seldom used and expensive to reproduce. It was suggested by Member Schmidt that two packets could be made available at work session, or, that if staff felt the project is controversial, they would provide a full-size set to everyone to take home. Chair Lingle agreed. Staffmember Gloss suggested that staff use discretion in the future on the number of sets and occasions where full-size sets are needed. All Board Members concurred. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Ceron Gloss, rector a • - -U M