Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDS TO GMA, FOSSIL CREEK COOP. PLAN. AREA - 19-04 - MINUTES/NOTES - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 13 Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of the GMA Expansion for the Fossil Creek CPA and Wildflower area, and the amendments to the City of Fort Collins/Larimer County IGA. The LeMaster Property is to be excluded from the GMA expansion and the entire Van Cleave Property will be included. The creation of the RUL zone district was excluded from the motion. Member Gavaldon cited the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that it may be a bit unfair for the properties south of Carpenter Road but basically, in terms of commercial and industrial development along that corridor, in considering the interest of the City as a whole, that area would be better served being under the control of the City of Fort Collins than it would be the way it stands now. He stated that he would support the motion. Member Schmidt stated that she would support the motion and noted that this change in the GMA is a commitment by the City of Fort Collins to be more proactive in the GMA. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel, Project Development Plan and Request for Modification Project Description: Request for a multi -family project containing 24 dwelling units within one structure located at 502 West Laurel Street. The units would be divided between 20 2-bedroom units and four 3-bedroom units. The building would be three stories in height. A manager's office and 35 under -structure parking spaces would be included on the first floor. The existing structure would be demolished. The site is at the northwest corner of West Laurel Street and Sherwood Street and is zoned NCB — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 12 Member Schmidt stated that she does not really support that GMA Boundary Amendment but if there is a State law stating that it would have to be done at annexation anyway; it may become a moot point. Planner Waido replied that the reason it is coming forth now is because there is a series of four public meetings that need to be held regarding this boundary change. It would be helpful to have all those completed by January so when City Council considers the annexation, the decision on the boundary change has been made already. Chairperson Torgerson clarified that the City is not required to annex any of this area by State law but rather required to do so by the IGA with Larimer County. Deputy Attorney Eckman stated that the State law allows us to annex enclaves after they have been enclaves for 3 or more years; it does not require us to annex enclaves. The court interpretations of the law have led to the conclusion that if you are going to annex part of an enclave, you have to annex all of it. Member Lingle offered a friendly amendment to specifically recommend that the RUL zone not be applied to the 1-25 area even though it is in conflict with the Structure Plan. Member Gavaldon accepted that amendment to the motion. Deputy Attorney Eckman stated that if a PDP should come before the Board with this difficulty of it not being able to be used for residential purposes because of the size of the lot, the Board would only be left with the takings provisions of the Land Use Code. Director Gloss stated that the % mile separation of residential uses from 1-25 is an Article 3 standard. Chairperson Torgerson suggested possibly continuing the item, going back and amending the Structure Plan, and then bringing the two items together to Council. Planner Waido replied that if the Board's concern is only with the RUL district, they may want to recommend approval of the three other components and not that one. He noted that the 1-25 Plan deferred to the Fossil Creek Plan for this area which showed that the area be rural lands — different than Urban Estate, LMN, etc. Chairperson Torgerson stated that there is another regulation that says it cannot be rural residential. Members Gavaidon and Lingle withdrew their motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 11 Member Lingle asked about the property at the southwest comer of the proposed Fossil Creek GMA expansion (the Hirsch property) and if they annex their property, would their uses come in as legally non -conforming uses. Planner Waido replied that they become existing limited permitted uses — they would not be denied the current use of the property. Planning Director Gloss stated that there are some rules about their expansion potential by right. Chairperson Torgerson clarified that this property could never be annexed against their will given that we could not make it an enclave given this GMA. The Hirsch property could only be annexed if they want to. Member Gavaldon stated agreement with Chairperson Torgerson regarding the RUL zones along 1-25 and stated that he would like City Council to know that this was a concern and that portion is not supported. He stated concern about a possible takings issue. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the GMA Boundary Amendments for the Fossil Creek CPA and Wildflower areas, creation of the RUL zone district and amendments to the City of Fort CollinslLarimer County IGA citing the facts and findings of the staff report. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Chairperson Torgerson asked if Member Gavaldon had included in his motion his objection to the RUL zoning in that particular area. Member Gavaldon added to his motion that the RUL zone not be allowed on the properties along 1-25 and the exclusion of the LeMaster property and inclusion of the entire Van Cleave property with respect to the GMA expansion. Member Carpenter asked if the Board could formally recommend not using the RUL zone district along 1-25. Member Schmidt asked if the Wildflower GMA Amendment could be done at the time of annexation. Planner Waido replied that that could be done. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 10 front of the Board tonight are to recommend or not recommend expansion of the GMA boundary and recommend or not recommend the establishment of an RUL zoning district to be applied to rural lands and community separator properties on the structure plan. Planner Wray stated that the RUL zoning does include areas to the north, it is not just within the GMA expansion areas. That would be applied as the areas are annexed, in accordance with the Structure Plan, unless the Structure Plan is amended with the annexation for different land uses. Member Schmidt asked how people go about requesting a change in zoning for their property. Planner Waido replied that recommended zonings, per the Structure Plan, will be applied to all areas within the Southwest Enclave Annexation area. The City accepts rezoning petitions twice a year. In the case where the rezoning requires an amendment to the Structure Plan, that can be done concurrently. Member Schmidt asked if that can be done parcel by parcel or if it had to be done in larger regions. Planner Waido replied that it can be done parcel by parcel but it may be easier to justify an entire neighborhood change rather than an individual lot. Chairperson Torgerson asked, if the Van Cleave property were to be excluded from this amendment, would they be able to develop in the County given the adequate public facilities issues at the intersection. Mr. Couch replied that any development would have to justify that there is enough capacity at the interchange. or that they could create enough capacity to proceed. The first couple uses would include those that would not create enough traffic to exceed that capacity. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the Board was, in addition to recommending that the RUL zone be adapted, recommending that it be put in these speck locations. Planner Waido replied that that would be a later decision but it is clearly the intent to apply the RUL zoning to properties identified as rural lands or community separators in the Structure Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 9 Chairperson Torgerson stated that this still does allow for the eventuality of housing along the Interstate, although there may be market discouragements for doing so. Planner Waido stated that they would be able to develop residential within % mile of the Interstate as the Code is currently written. Member Gavaldon stated that the'/, mile buffer was important and stated concern about this issue. Planning Director Gloss stated that staff had anticipated this may be a problem in the future and noted that when the 1-25 Design Standards were adopted, they included a standard that all residential uses be set back'/, mile from 1-25 so there is already a binding regulation that would move any units back from the Interstate. Chairperson Torgerson asked if there were any parcels in the affected area that are within '/< mile of 1-25 that are not large enough to be outside of that because those properties would then be subject to a.taking, or something that would resemble it. Planner Wray replied that there are a handful of parcels that would fall into those criteria, perhaps 3 or 4. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the only allowed use is residential and residential is not allowed within % mile, if a taking would result. Planner Waido replied that residential is not the only allowed use — churches and golf courses and other uses are allowed. He deferred to Attorney Eckman on whether or not that constitutes a taking. Planner Wray stated that the intent of the Fossil Creek plan, started in 1997, was to not change the County zoning in this area. From 1997 until now, we have not had a zoning classification in place to describe the County zoning. The properties within FA-1 have been put into Transition zoning in the City. Chairperson Torgerson stated that though it was consistent with the Fossil Creek Sub Area Plan, it seems like the goal of keeping the zoning consistent with County zoning is less important than some of the things we've learned since, such as Waterglen. Member Lingle asked if anything was being done with this proposal to the land within the current GMA or if we were just dealing with the expansion of the GMA. Planner Waido replied that the recommendation for zoning would be based on the Structure Plan which has been adopted as part of the City Plan update. The items in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 8 areas, the enclave was created. The GMA could potentially be expanded to include those areas but it seemed more publicly acceptable to just annex it. Member Schmidt asked if the Southwest enclave area would still be an enclave without the Wildflower area. Planner Waido replied that the GMA boundary expansion does not make the enclave, it was made with the annexations in 2001. if the City wants to annex the enclave, it does have to annex the entire thing. Planning Director Gloss stated that the first neighborhood meeting on the Southwest Enclave Annexation project was held last week and noted that there will be 6 more meetings through the end of August. Member Schmidt asked if all the CPA would be gone with this GMA expansion. Planner Waido replied that the only CPA ever established was the one in Fossil Creek. The original City Plan had a map that showed the concept of a CPA being an area outside the GMA. There was never any discussion about pursuing a CPA elsewhere. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the RUL zoning shown along 1-25 is consistent with the 1-25 Corridor Plan which sets residential uses back from the Interstate. Planner Waido replied that the zoning is consisted with the land use designations that are in the Fossil Creek Sub -area Plan. Planner Wray replied that the area just west of the Interstate has FA-1 zoning in the County so City staff wanted to acknowledge that rural pattern and not use one of the more urban zoning designations for that section. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the residential zoning near the Interstate conflicts with the 1-25 plan to move it back from the Interstate. Planner Waido replied that in the northern portion of the Corridor, when rezoning properties, we made sure we did not have any residential zoning within'/ mile of the Interstate. It is one thing that may need to be examined in terms of adding the % mile setback into the RUL zone. It would seem that most people would opt for the cluster option in this zone district because they will basically get a fivefold the density. Strategic placement of these clusters would likely place them more than % mile away from the Interstate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 7 Planner Waido replied that staff tried to stay true to the original boundary that was drawn in the CPA as part of the Fossil Creek Area Plan and CR 30 is the north edge of Loveland's GMA so it seemed to be more in cooperation with an open space corridor to not have the growth management boundaries meet. The area between is designated separator land. Member Lingle stated that the City Council has recently reaffirmed their decision not to expand the GMA and asked if this recommendation would be consistent with or contrary to that decision. Planner Waido replied that the policy that was adopted as part of the City Plan update says that GMA boundary amendments will only be considered as part of comprehensive updates to City Plan. There is not a policy that says the GMA that you see is what you get. The policy goes on to say that three areas have been identified in the 2004 comprehensive update to City Plan as potential GMA boundary changes — the CSU Foothills Campus, the Wildflower area, and Fossil Creek CPA. Member Lingle asked about the allowed uses in the RUL zone which include agricultural activities as well as accessory miscellaneous uses that include farm animals. He asked if that would also be allowable on a 2.29 acre lot in a cluster development. Planner Waido replied that the County health regulations govern density of animals. Horses require % acre per horse so a 2.29 acre lot can have horses depending on the amount of pasture on that lot. Member Lingle asked about the 1-25 interchange and about the fact that if this is adopted, Fort Collins would control the development on half that interchange. He asked if there had been any discussion on the City being an active participant on any improvements. Planner Waido replied that there is a speck policy in City Plan and in the Master Transportation Plan that says the City will not participate financially in interchange improvements. It would either need to be a state capital project or a combination of state money and private development interests. Member Schmidt noted that the County does not have any money to contribute to interchange improvements either. She asked why the City annexed the Coyote Ridge natural area in the Wildflower area but did not extend the GMA. Planner Waido replied that the Wildflower area is part of the larger Southwest enclave annexation area. When the City annexed the Coyote Ridge and Cathy Fromme Prairie Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 6 Planner Waido replied that the City's policy is not to annex outside the GMA boundary and the City has an agreement with Larimer County that we will consider enclave annexations. In January, if the boundary wasn't changed, the City would need to make a decision about not annexing outside the GMA. This "housekeeping" change will allow consistency with City policy and be true to the agreement with Larimer County. Planner Waido added that the new zone district came about after it was decided that making changes to the UE zone would not necessarily be appropriate. The minimum lot sizes were selected so as to remain sensitive to the fact that these are rural areas. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the RUL zone district would be much more consistent with the area's current County zoning than would UE zoning. Member Schmidt asked what the limits of the current County zoning are. Planner Waido replied that most of the Wildflower area is FA1 — Farming which allows 2.29 acre lots. Some of the Fossil Creek area is FA1 and some is Airport zoning — this is the area south of Carpenter Road. Airport zoning is pretty wide open in terms of its allowed uses. Member Schmidt asked if anything in Mr. Couch's proposal for the Van Cleave property would not be allowed in the proposed City zoning. Planner Waido replied that our Employment zone is more restrictive than the Airport zone. Pete Wray, Advance Planning, stated that staff had not heard any specifics about a detailed development project. The Employment zone would allow primary uses such as office parks as well as secondary uses including limited residential, convenience shopping centers, etc. The airport zoning allows a range of commercial uses. Member Schmidt asked if the City was going to annex all the pieces and if that would imply any changes for the current uses of the land. Planner Waido replied that whether they were annexed or not, they would be able to continue their current operation. Any change to the property that needed to be submitted to the County for development review would trigger the annexation requirement under the IGA. If there was contiguity at that time, the property would be required to annex. City staff is talking with the County about annexing the park that is north of CR 32. Member Schmidt asked why the GMA expansion did not go all the way down to CR30. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 5 Danny Hersch, 7798 S. County Road 11, gave his testimony to the. Board. He stated that he would also like to be excluded from the GMA expansion and that all of his 60 acres would be a part of the proposed expansion. Kim Hersch, 7798 S. County Road 11, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she and her husband had gone through an intense process to get approval for their shed and added that they did not want another obstacle for future plans for their property. Harris Jensen, 1731 W. Trilby Road, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he owns 7 acres in the middle of the Wildflower area and that they would like to stay in the County. He added that they are not using City services except for City water and wondered why the City would want to annex the Wildflower area. JoAnn Wartman spoke on behalf of Alan Ohms, 1665 W. Trilby. She stated that the property is in the Wildflower area and added that they are fundamentally against this annexation and want to live a rural lifestyle. She felt that annexation will devalue the property. However, if the property is to be annexed, she is against the RUL zoning because it is even more restrictive than the Residential Foothills district and would prefer Urban Estate zoning if they are to be annexed so they would have more flexibility to develop. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked about the Van Cleave property and why it was divided. Planner Waido replied that it is clearly not the City's intent to split property ownership boundaries but this seemed to be the most appropriate boundary line. He added that staff would be comfortable recommending a deletion of these 40 acres north of the'/Z section line. However, it is important that the employment area stay within the GMA and it would be staffs recommendation to include the 5 acres of employment that is currently not in the boundary. Pete Wray, City Planner with the Advance Planning Department, stated that the line halfway through Carpenter Road and CR 30 is consistent with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the CPA boundary. Chairperson Torgerson clarified that the recommendation is that the LeMaster property be excluded from the GMA change but that the Van Cleave property stay in, in it's entirety. He asked Planner Waido to answer Mr. Jensen's question about why the Wildflower area is included in this proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 4 deal with the Larimer County Land Use Code and a certain provision that would become moot if this expansion is approved. Staff is recommending approval of the Fossil Creek CPA GMA and Wildflower GMA boundary amendments, adoption of the new Rural Land Use District, and adoption of the minor changes to the City/County ]GA. Public Input Jeff Couch, Team Engineering, 3468 Shallow Pond Drive, spoke on behalf of Mary & Terry Van Cleave who are owners of a parcel in the affected area. He requested that the Van Cleave parcel be excluded from the GMA expansion. He noted that there is a 5- acre piece that, for some reason, is not included in the expansion area and stated that it would be difficult to deal with. He added that the Van Cleaves do not depend on the City of Fort Collins for any service and will not depend on it in the future. The County zoning allows the property to do anything that would support the airport function allowing a wide variety of uses. The property is part of both the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The access for the property will come off a county road which will eventually connect to Carpenter Road which is in the process of becoming a state road. Mr. Couch added that the Van Cleaves have an approved sketch plan for a mixed commercial -industrial use in which wetland, groundwater, and wildlife issues are identified and dealt with. He also noted that the Windsor/1-25 interchange has not been offered any assistance for development from the City of Fort Collins. He stated that the best, most common-sense thing for this property, give prior agreements, would be to remain in the County or annex to the City of Windsor as their goals for the property are to convert it to a commercialfindustrial use rather than protect it for open space as the City of Fort Collins would like. Member Schmidt asked if the wetland and wildlife regulations were met to City or just County regulations. Mr. Couch replied that the identification of wetlands is fairly consistent between the City and the County. He clarified for Member Schmidt that there are 5 acres of the total 40 acre piece that are not included in the GMA expansion area. He added that it is difficult for developers to deal with Fort Collins and its "no growth" attitude. Roberta LeMaster, 4100 E. County Road 30, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that this proposal will also divide her land into two parcels and asked that the Board exclude her property from the GMA expansion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 3 Planner Waido gave some history of the Fossil Creek CPA and stated that it was formally recognized as a future expansion area for the GMA in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Planner Waido stated that the Wildflower area became enclaved by City limits in November 2001 when the City annexed the Coyote Ridge Natural Area. It will be part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in early 2005. He noted that state statute requires enclaves to be annexed in their entirety or not at all. Mr. Waido stated that, in the recent update to City Plan, a policy called for boundary amendments to be evaluated against a series of criteria to be applied to the potential boundary changes identified in the update. The first is the consistency with the goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. Staff feels that both of these potential expansions will be consistent with this. As the City policy is to not annex outside the GMA and has agreed with Larimer County to consider annexing enclaved areas, this makes sense for the Wildflower area. In regards to the Fossil Creek CPA, the GMA expansion will help to execute the policies in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Subarea Plan. He stated that another consideration is whether or not these areas will provide a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. It has been determined that the Wildflower area will probably not have a positive net fiscal benefit but the Fossil Creek CPA likely will have a positive net fiscal benefit. Police protection and street maintenance would need to be added to the area when it does annex. There are no environmental constraints or hazards in the Wildflower and are some environmental resources adjacent to the reservoir in the Fossil Creek area: There are no hazardous areas here, however. Planner Waido stated that the new Rural Lands Zoning District would be applied to areas designated as rural lands in community separators that are on the Structure Plan map. This is essentially a residential district with a 10-acre minimum lot size but there is an incentive to cluster residential units — density would increase to one unit per 2.29 acres but 80% of the balance of the property would have to remain as open space. The RUL zone would be applied to areas that are in the Structure Plan as rural lands, basically to the west of.1-25, along the northem edge of Fossil Creek Reservoir, and south of Carpenter Road as well as a few other areas near Taft Hill Road in the Wildflower area. The third component of this item involves changes to the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County dealing with annexation . agreements — staff is recommending that specific references to directions by streets and roads be deleted and that more general text be added. The second IGA change would ATTACHMENT 2 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 2 Attorney Eckman stated that Item #5 should not be heard per state statute. Director Gloss stated that Item #5 would be continued to the July 15, 2004 agenda. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1, less the May 20, 2004 minutes, 2, 39 49 6 and 7. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson Torgerson noted that Item #7 was incorrectly advertised to be a recommendation to City Council — the Planning and Zoning Board is In fact the final authority on the item. Project: Wildflower and Fossil Creek CPA GMA Amendment Project Description: Wildflower: Request to add approximately 160 acres into the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA, setting the stage for eventual annexation of the area into the City of Fort Collins. Fossil Creek CPA: Request to add approximately 2 and % square miles into the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA, setting the stage for eventual annexation of the area into the City of Fort Collins. Staff Recommendation:. Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ken Waido, City Planner with the Advance Planning Department, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. Planner Waldo stated that, in addition to the proposed GMA expansions, there is also a proposal for a new zoning district called the Rural Lands District and also several changes to the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. He stated that the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area is located in the extreme southeast portion of the community, bounded on the east by 1-25 and bisected by Carpenter Road. The Wildflower area is on the western edge of the GMA and is bounded on the west by Taft Hill Road and is bisected by Trilby Road.