Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHORLAND ANNEXATION & ZONING NO. 2 - 33-07 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (7)Planning r3< Zoning Board January 17, 2008 Page 7 Carl Edwards said he'd like to applaud Mr. Thorland for asking that the property be annexed and for having such a great plan. His concern remains if each one of these parcels are annexed separately will each parcel have utilities and easements and retaining ponds or is there some way to create a master plan so you don't have each property having to have that? Olt responded from the standpoint of utility easements it's not different from what you'd find in a subdivision such as Stetson Creek. Each property has specific utility easements for water, sewer, electricity, etc. Detention (managed storm water run-off) would be required in some circumstances — that would be defined (if required and where) when a subdivision plat and a project development plan are submitted. That can happen independently on each lot. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that if someone would try to assemble those lots and develop it as a subdivision it would be possible to coordinate. But, failing that each person has a right to use/ develop their property. It may be piecemeal. If it is piecemeal; it would most likely be low density type development uses such as the Thorland's proposal. Member Lingle recommended approval of Thorland Annexation and Zoning No 1-432-07 based on the Findings found on the Staff Report Page 3. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Motion passed 7:0. Member Lingle recommended approval of Thorland Annexation and Zoning No 2-03-07 based on the Findings found on the Staff Report Page 3, Member Rollins seconded the motion. Motion passed 7:0. Other Business: Member Lingle noticed when looking at information related to term limits for the Chair and Vice -Chair, he noted the bylaws state that elections should take place in September. To his recollection, elections have been in January. He asked if at some point we need to amend our by-laws. Director Gloss said he'd like to put by-law review on a work session agenda. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. I� V�,.�/ - Planning & Zoning Board January 17. 2008 Page 6 Chair Schmidt asked Olt to describe the standards for Urban Estate. Olt explained that UE is one of the three lowest density zones. It requires that residential property in that zone be on one-half acre parcels or no more than two per acre. Cluster development is also allowed in that zone and must maintain the same density requirements. In this case with six acres there could be a maximum of 12 units with a corresponding requirement that 50% of the parcel be in open space. Olt said speaking to the question of advantage to the City this is not an action the City initiated. Rather because the owner wants to subdivide and build, they have elected to petition for annexation. There is no master plan for the approximately 8 or 9 parcels/60 acres north of Kechter. It is not normally the type of situation where we would direct the type of development that would occur. He's talked to a number of the property owners as there seems to be a lot of interest in that area. The Thorlands, however, are the only ones who have petitioned for annexation. Chair Schmidt asked if any of the parcels are currently for sale. Olt responded yes. When he was out there a couple of weeks ago to take photos for tonight's presentation, he noticed two for -sale signs for parcels east of the Thorland's. Member Rollins asked Olt to speak to planning for drainage or utilities whether it's an individual property owner or a developer for the whole approximately 60 acre parcel. Would we not hold them both to the same standards? Olt responded yes they would be held to the same standards. Utility plans and a drainage report are some of the items that are reviewed at the time a project development plan subdivision proposal is submitted. Miles Thorland, 4918 Bluestem Court, said he owns the property with his wife. His in-laws live in the home currently on the parcel. For the Board's information, he's spoken to all the property owners in the Blehm Subdivision as well as one property owner to the north and a few to the west. He's shared information on what they'd like to do. Before purchasing the property, he met in conceptual review with City staff and has an understanding of the requirements that relate to right-of-way, drainage and utilities and they have no concerns in that regard. Additionally there are water rights and drainage issues related to the New Mercer Ditch that affect seven parcels in the Blehm Subdivision. They will maintain the status quo with that. The property will be a horse property and he wanted to reassure the neighbors that while there is no master plan for the area, their plans are "a good thing" for the neighborhood. Chair Schmidt commented that as an area urbanizes or an individual property owner wants to add another house (subdivide) the County thinks it's more appropriate for the City to act on the request satisfying standards that exist within City limits. Paul Miller askedff there were plans for the second home. Chair Schmidt said tonight the question before the board is whether the property should be annexed. Any questions related to plans would be more appropriate at the time they come in with a project development plan. Paul Miller asked if when all the properties in the Blehm Subdivision are annexed will they all come in as Urban Estate or will that change over time. Olt responded that the subdivision as identified on the City's Structure Plan is shown as Urban Estate; so yes, all will come in as Urban Estate. If another zoning district was requested, it would need to be evaluated by staff, reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board, with the ultimate decision being made by City Council. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that's not to say that it couldn't change to another zone given the proximity of more densely developed subdivisions such as Sage Creek and Stetson Creek. Olt added that if that were the situation there is a public notification/outreach process. Planning ?,Zoning Board January 17, 2008 Page 5 County. The other portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision is adjacent to the south of the property. The Stetson Creek residential development is adjacent to the north of the property. Miles & Jennifer Thorland have submitted a second written petition requesting annexation of 5.18 acres located on the north side of Kechter Road approximately 800 feet east of South Timberline Road. It is the southerly portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision in Larimer County. The other portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision is adjacent to the north of the property. The requests are nothing more than bringing the parcels into the City limits —it is not a design proposal. The owners expressed intent is to subdivide and build an additional single-family residence. That action is not yet initiated. When they come in with a development proposal, it would require. an easement or future right-of-way. Staff would want to see a circulation road. The right-of-way would be the starting point for redevelopment. Member Rollins asked if the annexations were approved, would the lot to the east be able to do that with one request. Olt replied yes —they would have 50% contiguity. Chair Schmidt wondered what would happen if the lots currently in the County want to be annexed and do not want to grant right-of-way for a road. Olt replied when annexed and wanting to subdivide, they are required by LUC Section 3.6 to provide connectivity between properties. Member Wetzler asked how the street alignment would be determined when the seven lots in this area are annexed and built out. Olt replied the lot depths are over. 1300 feet from Kechter Road/County Road 36. A road would be needed no more than 660 from that starting point. Olt said this road would not be a collector street or a part of the Street Master Plan. Until we see the redevelopment plans for the properties, it is unknown where the logical alignment would be. Public Input Pete Miller, 2309 Sweetwater, lives north of the proposed annexation. He wondered what advantage it would be for the City to annex. He'd be interested in learning exactly what would be occurring —he understands there are plans to build a single family residence but he's not seen them. He'd like to know what is being planned for the entire seven parcels. He's worried what would happen in a piecemeal fashion. Carl Edwards lives in Stetson Creek Subdivision. He'd like to understand why the City would allow one piece of a fairly large area to be annexed. Why not one master plan versus one parcel at a time? With a master plan, we'd have a better sense of planning for drainage, easements/roads, utilities, and sewers. If there's not a master plan, can we get one? End of Public Input Staff member Olt said to the best of his knowledge gall the parcels are individually owned. The property is located well within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA.) According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City agrees to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This not a forced annexation or enclave situation. It is a voluntary petition to annex. The property owner's intent is to subdivide and build a second single-family residence. When the property is annexed it would come in with an Urban Estates (UE) zoning designation. Planning & Zoning Board January 17, 2008 Page 4 The following two projects were considered together Project: Thorland Annexation and Zoning No. 1 - #32-07 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 1.66 acres located on the north side of Kechter Road approximately 800 feet east of South Timberline Road. It is the northerly portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision in Larimer County. The other portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision is adjacent to the south of the property. The Stetson Creek residential development is adjacent to the north of the property. The property is undeveloped and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval subject to two conditions —one condition relating to preserving the integrity of underground utilities and at the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the west elevation shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G) — Building Height Review and Section 3.5.1(H) — Land Use Transition. Project: Thorland Annexation and Zoning No. 2 - #33-07 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 5.18 acres located on the north side of Kechter Road approximately 800 feet east of South Timberline Road. It is the southerly portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision in Larimer County. The other portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision is adjacent to the north of the property. The property is partially developed (with one single-family residence and outbuildings) and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate. Recommendation: Staff recommends- approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the UE - Urban Estate Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment would not be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be placed on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Planner Steve Olt reported this property (in the case of Annexation # 1) gains the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the South Harmony Annexation (February, 1986) to the north. Once approved, the second annexation request gains the required 1/6 contiguity to. existing City limits from a common boundary with Annexation # 1. The applicants and property owners, Miles & Jennifer Thorland, have submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 1.66 acres located on the north side of Kechter Road approximately 800 feet east of South Timberline Road. It is the northerly portion of Lot 1 of the Blehm Subdivision in Larimer Planning & Zoning Board January 17, 2008 Page 3 End of Public Input Chair Schmidt asked Planner Steve Olt to provide background. Staff member Olt reported the proposal is for an 84 unit hotel as well as three pad sites —one for offices, another for a restaurant and the last for retail use. The developer is here tonight and could better detail how the complex will be built out. Don Ennis, an architect representing PA Investments, reported the development proposal started with an intent to build an extended stay hotel in conjunction with Intercontinental Hotels. They began looking for a site in this area and found the site on Pavilion Lane. They have been working with Planning Staff and Land Use Code requirements in developing their proposal for a mixed used project that will include commercial, retail, and a restaurant. A staff member responsible for marketing the project is available for questions. (Off the proceedings recorder, the staff member stated he'd be happy to speak to operations but he did not think it was relevant to the decision before the board.) Member Stockover asked for clarification for the benefit of the audience regarding the Board's purview. Chair Schmidt stated the purview of the Board is land use issues. They cannot take into consideration the economic viability of a project in making their decisions. Member Rollins asked if the Board cannot take into account economic viability, can City Council if their decision is appealed? Deputy City Attorney Eckman said no. An appeal is "on the record"; Council's review is from the same book (the Land Use Code). Member Smith agreed while they have interest in the issues expressed, the Board must limit their evaluation to land use. Member Smith made a motion the Planning r9i Zoning Board approve The Plaza @ Pavilion Lane, Project Development Plan - #37-07 per the Findings of Fact on page 8 of the staff report. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Member Stockover agreed with Member Smith, the Board cannot set the level of competition —it's not in their purview in any way, shape, or form. While he appreciates the concerns raised, the Board's decisions cannot be based on economics. Member Stockover asked ("just out of curiosity") why are the number of gas stations limited in a certain area? Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied it was not the number of gas stations so much as its traffic impact on the neighborhood. Director Gloss agreed. Eckman stated compatibility of a neighborhood (LUC 3.5.1) can be taken into consideration when the Board evaluates a proposal. In the case of the Plaza @ Pavilion Lane project, however, staff has determined that is not the case with this proposal. Chair Schmidt reiterated economics cannot arbitrarily be applied —ours are not business decisions. If a proposal abides by the Code and is properly built they deserve the Board's support and that is why she will be voting in favor of the proposal. Motion was approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board January 17, 2008 Page 2 Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from the December 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and 3425 S. Shields Street Mixed Use Project Development Plan, # 28-07. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Project: The Plaza @ Pavilion Lane, Project Development Plan - #37-07 Project Description: This proposal is a request for a hotel, office, retail, and standard restaurant on 3.19 acres. It is Lot 1 of the previously approved Goodwill Industries of Denver Subdivision. There will be four (4) buildings: the hotel being three stories (40'- 0") in height and containing 47,790 square feet; and the three (3) pad sites, each containing one-story buildings (up to 35'-0" in height) that are 6,000 square feet in size. The property is located at the northwest comer of Pavilion Lane and JFK Parkway and is in the HC - Harmony Corridor Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony. Written Comments and Other Evidence Chair Schmidt asked audience members who had requested the topic be moved to the Discussion Agenda if they'd like a brief overview. They stated they were familiar with the project and wanted simply to voice their concerns. Public Input John Maple, President of the Innkeepers of Fort Collins and General Manager of Homewood Suites, stated the hotel market in Fort Collins is in a declining market. As of January 2008 they are down 30%. Their concern is with two other hotels under construction, they did not believe another hotel would be beneficial to the market. It would cause rate bidding wars and a decline in sales tax. Dave McDaniel, General Manager of the Marriott Hotel, wanted to support Maple's comments. The decline started the last quarter of 2007 and given the information for January, the outlook does not look good. Member Lingle stated the proposal was for an extended stay facility. Did that have any bearing on their concerns? Maple responded there were already a number of extended stay facilities in Fort Collins. With an excess number of hotels and a decline in the number of businesses bringing business travelers to Fort Collins, budget projections for 2008 are concerning. Linda Barnett, Manager of the Comfort Suites on Oakridge, stated she'd received information from the Chamber of Commerce regarding financial impact of the additional facility. Basically the hotel sector in 2007 only had a 2% business growth rate. This proposal would increase hotel rooms by 18% (versus what was previously thought to be 140/o.) She supports Fort Collins' growth but she has concem above the increased number of hotels. council Liaison: Diggs Brown Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss 'Chairperson: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (W) 491-2579 Vice Chair: William Stockover Phone: 226-4328 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss noted all projects are on the Consent Agenda. Of special note is the election of officers (chair and vice -chair,) items 3 and 4 (Thorland Annexation & Zoning # 1, # 32-07 and Thorland Annexation & Zoning # 2, # 33-07) were separated to satisfy our requirements for annexation but for all intents and purposes are one project. They are recommendations to City Council. Item 5 (3425 S. Shields Street Mixed Use Project Development Plan, # 28-07) was approved administratively as a Type I proposal and is before the Board tonight because the applicant is requesting some Type II uses- Additionally, because of telephone calls received by staff this afternoon, he believed there is some misunderstanding on the part of the general public related to the Thorland annexations. The proposals are for annexations only and are not development plan proposals. Election of Officers: Member Rollins nominated Brigitte Schmidt as Chair and William Stockover as Vice -Chair. Member Smith seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. The motion passed 7:0. Chair Schmidt wanted to thank Dave Lingle for his leadership these past two years. If the Board's by- laws did not limit the Chairs term to two years, he would very likely still be serving in that capacity. Citizen participation: None Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. Members of the audience asked that the following projects be moved to the Discussion Agenda: Pavilion Lane Project Development, # 37-07, Thorland Annexation & Zoning # 1, # 32-07, and Thorland Annexation & Zoning # 2, # 33-07. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the December 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 5. 3425 S. Shields Street Mixed Use Project Development Plan, # 28-07 Discussion items: 2. Pavilion Lane Project Development, # 37-07 3. Thorland Annexation & Zoning # 1, # 32-07 4. Thorland Annexation & Zoning # 2, # 33-07