Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOOD STREET ANNEXATION & ZONING - ANX120001 - P&Z PACKET - MINUTES/NOTESG Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 18 Member Carpenter said she would have to agree with Member Schmidt. This is a "toughie" and we do need to look at it so that it doesn't happen again because it sort of feels like our hands are tied in making any kind of recommendation other than yes or no. She thinks it would be a really good thing if this comes back in some way so that we can rectify it so it doesn't happen again. She said that might be good things to have in our recommendation that Council look at that. Motion passed 6:0. Member Schmidt said we certainly are going to be better than what it might be in the County Member Stockover said he'd caution us there. He thinks that our County staff does a great job so he personally would recommend not throwing and dirt their way. He thinks we should not taint anyone's image of the County. Member Schmidt said she shouldn't say that about the County. She should say where they have willing developers they do a great job but their regulations in many cases are not as restrictive as ours nor do they encourage as much creative thinking as ours. If there is someone who doesn't want to put a lot of effort into a development, they don't necessarily have to in the county. Member Kirkpatrick recused herself and left the meeting. Chair Smith asked staff if it would be more efficient and useful to combine the next two topics. Chief City Planner Ted Shepard said that makes perfect sense. Project: Bucking Horse Addition of Permitted Use, # APU 120001 Project Description: This is a request for eight Additions of Permitted Use, distributed among three zone districts, to the Bucking Horse Overall Development Plan. For the Urban Estate zone, the request is to add professional office and agricultural activities. For the L-M-N zone, the request is to add multi -family with speck design parameters. For the Industrial zone, the request is to add retail, standard restaurant, open-air fanners market, agricultural activities and single family detached. The Bucking Horse O.D.P. contains 153 acres and is located generally on the east side of Timberline Road and north of Drake Road. Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Project: Bucking Horse Overall Development Plan, # ODP 120001 Project Description: This is a request is to amend the vacant balance of Johnson Property Overall Development Plan (ODP), including both the historic Jessup and Johnson Farms. This area consists of 153 acres and is generally located east of Timberline Road and north of Drake Road. The amendment would add new permitted uses and, if approved, would include eight new uses as Additions of Permitted Use. The parcel is zoned U-E, Urban Estate, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and I, Industrial. Recommendation: Approval with condition. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 17 Member Smith said he understands some of the technical issues that are being presented. He may or may not be entirely comfortable with them but the simple matter is we have a very clear mandate as to what our purview is and there is a very clear sequence of events that we go through to bring to a property in through annexation, zoning, and PDP (Project Development Plan). He thinks we need to be very true to the process and so the question we have is whether we should annex it based on the IGA, zone it on a couple of very clear criteria. He hasn't been convinced we wouldn't recommend approval of this voluntary annexation as requested and zone it UE. He thinks whenever we make a motion, that's the way he'll be voting. Member Hatfield said whether we recommend annexation or not, the final decision is City Council's Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the Wood Street Annexation # ANX120001 with the zoning of UE based on the facts and findings on the staff report beginning on page 4. The motion includes the staff recommendation that the property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said we have a situation that we sort of have to accept this time. She would recommend that if the City really feels firmly about the no residential LOMR fill, that we add something in our Code. It wouldn't matter what you did before; this is a City requirement. Then a developer would know. As long as we leave that kind of loophole, it makes it awkward. If the change is made, she thinks it'll make it clear to everyone in the future. Member Kirkpatrick said we cannot put a condition on annexation but can we put a condition on zoning that they do a full LOMR. Eckman said you probably could as you do not have any legal impediment to doing it. You might have some practical ones that staff could discuss. Eckman said one of the practical ones is the petitioner for annexation might have the right to withdraw this annexation up until the 2ntl reading of the ordinance by City Council. Whether that would open the door for the County to approve a development in the County, he doesn't know. Member Schmidt said she'd rather wait and see what the PDP shows and how many houses are going to be on that site. It could be one or two or mostly back yards; that might not necessitate it as much as if there are 25 houses there. She asked Eckman if it could be addressed at PDP? Eckman said that would be a Stormwater Utility question. He doesn't know how much at that juncture, the Stormwater Utility can regulate the nature of the PDP. Hilmes-Robinson said the Code is pretty black and white about what the requirements are. The Code is pretty specific if you're out of the floodplain and that is what this lot is going to be. Chapter 10 of City Code no Longer applies other than to deal with the condition that the County placed on the LOMR fill application. Member Schmidt asked if there's anything that could be done such as retaining walls or land contouring in that floodplain area that is outside the LOMR area that would protect it more that would give Stormwater Utilities greater piece of mind. Hilmes-Robinson said if related to the residential, not really. What they are proposing and we will require, because they're concerned about the whole development (not just the LOMR fill piece) is the channel stability for the area where in 1999 we had the scour occur. Because part of the property is in the floodplain, we want to make sure it's addressed. They would be required to analyze that and do some sort of mitigation to protect the backs of those lots. It might be a flood wall. C Member Hatfield said he can find no legal reason to vote against the recommendation to City Council. He does have some emotional concerns. They have to do with manifest destiny but from a legal point of view he would support it. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 16 C; Member Carpenter said Hilmes-Robinson may have answered this but she just wants to be clear in her mind that the full LOMR modeling can still be done. The applicant could do it voluntarily; we couldn't require it after the annexation. Hilmes-Robinson said it still could be done. Eckman said he would not recommend the imposition of an additional condition on the annexation because there is a provision on the annexation act that if we impose additional conditions than it might trigger an election requirement. Eckman said additional conditions could be imposed on the zoning for example but he would stay away from it in the annexation aspect of it. Member Hatfield asked between the County and the City planning and zoning rules, which is the most restrictive as far as projected development. Eckman said he's not familiar with the County's. Ex said when she said the County regulations differ from the City she was specifically referring to how they differ with regard to floodplain regulations. Chair Smith said it would be tough to assess. Smith said in general there are differences and if Hatfield is talking about an overall review process; his suspicion is not knowing the County's that there are specific instances when their standards could be deemed more restrictive and other times the City's would be deemed more restrictive. Member Hatfield said in the past we've spoken of the greater good. He's wondering where the greater good was for the community to add on another subdivision which is not in the infill area. Interim CDNS Director Kadrich said she believes in this instance, this parcel is in the Growth Management Area and as such there is an agreement between the City and County in conjunction with the planning of the urban area that these lands would be valued and at some point in time part of the urban area rather than the rural area. Member Stockover said if we were not to annex, they would still be able to proceed with their project in the County; is that correct. Eckman said he'd expect the County would not say they could do nothing with their property. Stockover asked if a piece of property borders the city, does the City still have review criteria on a county project? Ex said if it does not meet annexation requirements; we process them as county referrals so they do provide comments. Stockover said it sounds like they could build on this if we do not annex it. Eckman said he wouldn't want to guarantee they could not. Member Schmidt said she noticed in the blue area to the north of the mobile homes that still in the flood fringe; does the City have any other additional requirements there if annexed. If there's material there would it have to be removed immediately or does that just go with development? Hilmes-Robinson said the regulations would apply at the time of development/building permit. With this proposed as being a .residential subdivision; there would not be any residential structures allowed in that area. There are no floatable material regulations for this property because it's residential. The City's floatable material regulations apply only to non-residential. Certainly the applicant has already done a significant amount of work — cleaning up the property and removing floatable materials. It's vastly improved from what it was and that definitely needs to be acknowledged. It is quite an improvement on this site. Public Input None Board Discussion Member Schmidt said she thinks that Stockover made a good recommendation earlier, if we recommend to City Council that they do not annex this parcel, and then it's very possible they would proceed in the County. She thinks there are a lot more options for providing for the public good by having a better project in the City than what we might get in the County. She thinks the City has a lot more regulations that go with the clustering and she'd rather see that happen than something like Y: acre lots in the County. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 15 �j safety because a full hydraulic analysis with modeling has not been done on that site. Staff can't tell the Board if this is a fully safe condition or not. Staff just can't answer that question. Member Schmidt asked if that is a very costly thing to do the analysis now. Hilmes-Robinson said it is — it involves quite a bit of engineering time. That's when you get into that other process with FEMA — the full LOMR process. Member Schmidt said as Hilmes-Robinson said this might be an acceptance type situation now that things have been done. In the future is there any effort to work with the County to come to agreement on future floodplain issues such as this. Hilmes-Robinson said they've been through it a couple of times. This is one thing where the City and County do not match on all of their regulations. In 2007 there was an effort to review the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. In that case it was primarily focused on the Mulberry Corridor and some differences between the City and the County regulations. At that point in time the County became more restrictive on some things — this being one of them where they added that two foot of free board requirement for these LOMR-fills. They matched on most but there were a few regulations where they just could not come to terms. The County did not want to adopt what the City had and the City was not willing to give up what we had. One criteria is related to no residential in the floodplain. Hilmes-Robinson said the County has a different way of thinking and processing their applications. They really push their applicants to go through some sort of FEMA process to change the map to not be in the floodplain. In theory what they're saying is we don't allow any development in the floodplain but we allow development on these LOMR fill sites. Hilmes-Robinson said it's a very confusing difference between the City and the County. The City's standards are no residential in the 100 year floodplain. 'l,..f However, there was a gap in code for these LOMR-fills. The Code was silent on what to do when you went through that process and so in 2010, City Council adopted a new provision to Section 10-80 that deals with what to do on these LOMR-fills and added the restriction related to no residential on these LOMR fills so the Code was consistent with no residential in the 100 year flood plain. Hilmes-Robinson said the only other option for ci$anging the floodplain/modifying it is the full LOMR process where you fully take into account all of the flows, all of the fill, and all of the changes being proposed to see what the impacts would be. After that you may have to do some mitigation to be able to create more capacity, get easements from other property owners, etc. The map would then be changed and residential could be built on those areas that had been fully removed from the floodplain through the full LOMR process. Member Schmidt said'one other question that came up at work session. Have we ever had this type of situation before — have we ever annexed a property with the County's requirement instead of ours? Hilmes-Robinson said there has not been any during the time she's been with the City. There's been relatively little development along the Poudre River. Member Kirkpatrick asked would the condition that Haws suggested for additional modeling satisfy you or would you need additional analysis in addition to what he suggested. Hilmes-Robinson said the problem is they won't have any Code to enforce for that piece. The other modeling that we spoke of related to bank stabilization would be required by City Code because of the potential for stream bank erosion. They will need to do some stability assessment to be able to come up with a mitigation plan to protect all the lots (not just the LOMR fill area). The erosion that occurred in 2009 is pretty significant and is a concern for flood risk. `- Member Kirkpatrick said thank you to all for their presentations as it's been very helpful. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 14 Member Carpenter said her question is if we accept annexation of this piece of property than we are accepting where the County has the floodplain and we will not be able to address it again at the PDP (Project Development Plan) review. Hilmes-Robinson said that's her understanding. For that portion, we would be able to carry over that condition that the County placed on the LOMR-fill of elevating the two feet without having the basement. But that is it — you will be able to put residential on that LOMR fill site along with the other portions of the site that are not in the 100 year flood plain. Member Carpenter asked if in October 2011 when the County and City staff agreed to move forward does that mean you were satisfied with what was happening? Hilmes-Robinson said she was involved in those discussions. She said she doesn't think 'satisfied' is the appropriate wording for it. "It's acceptance because again we have what's in Code and as Floodplain Administration staff we have to follow what's in Code." She said it was the applicant's prerogative/rights to be able to deal with that LOMR-fill in the County. He was in the County at the time and not subject to anything in the City. He is not in the City even at this stage so we don't have any authority to be able to regulate that until it becomes annexed. Member Schmidt said the part she does not understand is did you say then if it had been in the city, even if the fill was done, reviewed and corrected; the City would not allow residential on that type of fill. Hilmes-Robinson said if they went through the LOMR-fill process within the City, they would have put a restriction on the community acknowledgement letter that would have said no new residential structures, no new critical facilities, and any non-residential structure that would have been built would have had to have that 2 foot of elevation requirement. Hilmes-Robinson said there is a series of about three or four regulations that are adopted in Section 10-80 of City Code to say here is what we do we have if one of these LOMR-fill processes had been brought to them. Member Schmidt said she got the impression through discussions at work session that the City reviews these parcels and it was deemed that this would have been a backflow area so you wouldn't have that kind of rush of water and that's why her impression was the City probably would have allowed residential. She wondered if others got that same impression. Carpenter indicated she also had that impression. Hilmes-Robinson said part of what Schmidt said was true. She spoke in the context of a slide on the screen — Haws gave some very good examples, one is out of one of the City's handouts related to those LOMR-fill sites including the one with the island with floodplain completely surrounding it. That's their worst case scenario —that is the epitome of what these regulations for LOMR fill are intended to prevent. That is what FEMA was seeing happen and which caused them to say to communities you need to be the ones to figure this out and adopt standards. Hilmes-Robinson said then he had the other example where the fill was sticking out like a peninsula and you're in the main flow path of the water — that would be the next worst case scenario. Then what they have on the slide indicated for demonstration purposes is by far not the worst case scenario; we have the Poudre River flowing from one point to the other and the,dark blue on the map is the floodway. That floodway is the deepest and fastest section of the floodplain. That's where you'll have the most conveyance of water — where the water is truly flowing through. Then you have these other areas along the edge that are designated as the flood fringe. Those areas generally run slower and are not as deep. You can still have a good amount of flow. She indicated where you'd have a portion of land sticking out — the water comes around and flows where indicated. In the area which Haws called ineffective flow, the water is not moving through there. It's like a little eddy - It's like a pocket of water behind a rock. The water is trapped there and spinning around in a circle. You're not going to have the main flow going through there so you are in an area where you're not going to generally see as much as an increase in C flood elevation then by placing that fill into the area as you would in the direct flow path. Hilmes- Robinson said this is a better location for that fill to have been placed. What were still saying is, though, is it does not meet City Code. We can't assess the full impact of what this does as far as health and Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 13 is contiguous to it. He said if the property is as undesirable as for us not to want to have it annexed, we can elect no annexation. It is during the development process we'd want to make sure there is a safe and adequate floodplain management plan for the development of the property. Chair Smith asked him to elaborate on "unless there is something undesirable". He said we're not talking about the quality of real estate. What factors would make it undesirable for annexation in their purview? Eckman said there was some concern that the county's process had left such an unsafe condition that it would be undesirable. Smith said he believes the risk is to the landowner —whether or not the developments that have occurred and the condition of the property would be appropriate for the types of development he may or may not be proposing and which the Board still has not seen. Member Carpenter asked Eckman if we do annex tonight, are we able to come back at the PDP (Project Development Plan) review stage and address this issue. If annexed that doesn't mean we've accepted what's done under the county's purview. Eckman said he'd like to defer to Marsha Hilmes-Robinson to help with the answer to that question. Hilmes-Robinson said we do have to deal with what was done in the county because that process has already taken place and that FEMA approval has already taken place. She referred to a FEMA letter and indicated the key part of the letter is the part that's circled in red —the flood zone. She said you're use to hearing staff talk about the 100 year floodplain, the 500 year floodplain and being outside the floodplain, when FEMA designates those they have these zones which are used for insurance purposes. The zone designation they now have for piece of the property that went through the LOMR fill process (the part that Haws showed on his slide) is that it is in the 500 year floodplain now according to FEMA. Cam, She. said as Haws described very accurately FEMA puts the responsibility back on the community as they sign off on that LOMR application. The county has placed the restriction (as prescribed by their code) to have the lowest floor elevated two feet above the flood elevation. She said the standards in the City are different. The catch is what do we do once a property gets annexed into the city. This is where Municipal Code Section 10-20 comes into play. This is what is being used to say how we're going to deal with properties that have floodplain designation. Code reads, "if lands located outside the city limits are included within a flood hazard area, the requirements of this article shall apply to such lands upon annexation and thereafter and any development activities upon such lands after the date of annexation shall comply with this article. Hilmes-Robinson said based on discussions they've had with the City Attomey's office and the information we have from FEMA is that designation is not part of the 100 year flood plain and is therefore is not subject to the City Code regulations. If this process (LOMR fill) had taken place in the City then they would have put different conditions on their approval. As you talked about at the work session, one of those conditions would have been no residential in the floodplain. It's the difference between the City and the County in what they say is reasonably safe from flooding and what their criteria is going to be. FEMA leaves it up to the communities. The technical bulletin that Haws showed earlier — it's about 25 pages thick but on the 2n0 or 3`° page it specifically talks about more restrictive regulations at a state or local level. A community can set higher standards than what the FEMA minimums are and that whole document is a guidance document. FEMA doesn't have the regulations related to that LOMR fill. They put it back on the communities to take up that responsibility. Hilmes-Robinson said the City's regulations are a little bit higher than the County's. The County's are a little bit higher than FEMA's. You could go to 20 different communities; you may have 20 different versions of how the regulations have been written. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 12 LOMR-F to remove area from floodplain, and residential homes to be built on filled area removed from the floodplain. Haws said in conclusion, he would kindly request the Board place conditions in their recommendation to City Council. They feel it is appropriate to continue to allow residential development in that area that was previously processed through Larimer County via LOMR-F (technically by the book it meets City criteria) but they'd like that to be absolutely sure. As it's coming into the city, that area is no longer technically in the floodplain. There are a couple of things the landowner will be doing that theoretically would exceed . City code since it's not floodplain. There will be no platted lots in the floodplain. All residential units would be elevated two feet above the floodplain elevation with their lowest floor. Haws said the landowner will agree to do hydraulic modeling to assess any erosion potential along the floodplain boundary and would not be limited to the area that was filled but would include the floodplain fringe. It was an effort to restore the land to its previous condition. It is true the landowner desires to build homes there but the intent is not at any cost or jeopardy to public safety. The landowner is also willing to contribute to offsite stream bank stabilization. Haws indicated an aerial photo with pink rip -rap. He said in April 1999 there was a high flow event that caused stream bank failure there and the City had to quickly mitigate and repair that to protect some utility lines in that area. It was not done with a full engineering analysis for stream bank stabilization. There are some other studies currently in this area with McMurray Natural Area and the West Vine Floodplain with the City and other consultants. It will look at the area more holistically from a floodplain management perspective and a velocity and modeling standpoint. He said it seems like an effective use of funds and landowner contribution to participate in those greater efforts with particular focus to whatever results here. The end benefits this landowner and the safety of future residents, adjacent properties, and the general (trail users, etc.) public at large. He said that might be a reasonable condition of annexation and above and beyond what might be required. Haws said that concludes his presentation. Member Schmidt said on the documents submitted the LOMR application form lists it as a single lot. It appears 912 Wood Street is one parcel. She's wondering would FEMA have interpreted it differently if they knew there were going to be a number of residences. Staff indicated it would be the same. Member Schmidt asked about one of the maps — "you didn't fix that whole right angle thing, just the one little portion." Haws said correct, it was a general effort. He said you can see it better in the field. That excavated area was much more discernible on the ground. It was more closely restored to the natural elevations. Also, they were really trying to protect and enhance those areas. The landowner's plan is to cluster away from the river as much as possible. Chair Smith asked about the.relevance of the applicant's presentation to the annexation application. He thinks it may be very easy for the Board to delve into matters that are going to be a part of the development review process. He just wants to make sure the Board is focused on the criteria for an annexation. He said he just wants to put it under perspective so that they do not digress to an area that may or may not really matter. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said he agreed this matter is not addressed in the annexation statute and it is an important issue. He said the annexation statute just calls for a question of whether there's contiguity. He said we do have an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Larimer County where we have agreed to pursue annexation of any property that demonstrates it has the necessary contiguity. Contiguity by itself demonstrates a community of interest under the statute. Eckman said it is true outside of the requirements of the IGA, that the City does not have an obligation to annex everything that Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 11 Cl when it was mapped 10 years later. What they've learned from the previous landowner is in between that 10 year period there was some excavation and earth work that occurred there. That man-made change to the topography caused that floodplain to bulge out there. He reviewed 2006 and 2008 — they followed that same shape and it remains the current effective FIRM map for the property. He did an overlay of the 1986 FIRM map with 1996 so the Board could more clearly see the change that occurred after the landowner did that excavation. Finally, the current effective map (2008) with the historic floodplain with an area in red that denotes what was filled under the county purview (with a floodplain development permit and a LOMR-F which was subsequently applied through FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)). Although not exact, it roughly follows the filling in of the area that previously had been excavated. It is really not a filling `of a natural stream bank; it was an effort to restore the ground to its native state. Haws reviewed some aerial photos that show: the project site, the 100-Year Flood Way, the 100-Year Flood Fringe. He said in addition to the FEMA regulatory floodplains on the property there are also City regulatory floodplain and floodway from West Vine to the river. In viewing the combined floodplains, the property had approximately five homes in the floodway of West Vine and about another six homes including a sanitary sewage lift station/septic tank/leach field all in the flood plain. One aerial with overlays showed the area that was filled in the county and went through the LOMR-F process with FEMA. Another photo enlarged the area. Haws said to dispel any notions that this is filling along the stream banks; the edge of the fill is 115 feet to the Poudre river trail. The Poudre channel braids and splits so there's 290 feet to the closest braid. It is another 410 feet to the outer channel. To the east it is 540 feet. There is still substantial riparian buffer in remaining floodplain fringe and conveyance. This little man-made back flow area is really not a jeopardy to public safety. Haws said the next slide comes from the City of Fort Collins Poudre River Quick Guide. It's a good illustration (albeit in an exaggerated sense) of what could potentially happen through LOMR fill and floodplain and that is why FEMA and local communities chose to change some of the regulations. He said one of the things that FEMA did was to modify the LOMR-F process and created a community acknowledgment form — that basically empowered (or placed some burden) on the local floodplain administrators to oversee LOMR-Fs and to insure that they were reasonably safe from flooding. He referred to information in FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 that had schematics of non -basement foundations and crawlspace foundations as well as a foundation flood risk table. Haws said through that process the landowner agreed that any future residences built on that fill pad would have no basement (it would have a stem wall or crawl space) and the lowest floor elevation of those structures would be elevated above the base flood elevation and honor the City of Fort Collins Poudre River freeboard of two feet above base flood elevation. He said the fill pad that was created was in most cases above minimum at the adjoining base flood level elevation submitted to FEMA, accepted; and basically that area is no longer in the floodplain. Haws said the foundations that the landowner agreed to as a condition of the county permit and will continue to agree through annexation is either the stem wall or crawl space —those are the highest levels of risk protection from being reasonably safe from flooding. Even though technically it's no longer in the floodplain, it acknowledges there could be a risk if you were to dig basements. Haws went through the sequencing of events with the County from October 2011 (met with County and City Floodplain Administrators to discuss intentions) to January -March 2012 (applied for and obtained a LOMR-F from FEMA removing area from floodplain). In April 2012 submitted petition for annexation to the City. He reviewed a simplified comparison of County vs. City regulations. The table categorized items into Allowed in County and Allowed in City for: placement of fill material in 100-year flood fringe, Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 10 according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the McMurry Natural Area (December, 2010) to the north, thus satisfying the requirement that no less thari one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The requested zoning for this annexation is the UE — Urban Estate Zoning District. There are numerous uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City's Structure Plan Map and Northwest Subarea Plan provide guidance that the subject 17.3443 acres should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E). In the Structure Plan, the subject property is designated as "Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors." As noted in City Plan, "Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors are not intended to be parcel -specific designations, but rather general designations that follow major drainageways and other wildlife and water corridors" (page 96). Thus, the Structure Plan and City Plan suggest development in these areas should emphasize and acknowledge the influence and value of the river in any proposed development. The Northwest Subarea Plan (approved in 2006) outlines that the subject property should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E) and further suggests that residential development on the subject property should be clustered (see the Framework Plan Map on page 12 of the Plan and Attachment 5 to this document). Thus, based on the guidance provided by the Structure Plan, City Plan, and the Northwest Subarea Plan, it is staffs finding that this property should be zoned U-E. Northwest Subarea Plan calls out that this area should be zoned as "Urban Estate" with residential clustering preferred. Ex highlighted concerns staff has heard. They are: • Would have liked to see Public Open Lands Zoning. Because this parcel is privately owned, that designation isn't available. It does match what the Structure Plan has called for. • Floodplain fill through a LOMR-Fill process was approved while in the County. It is important to note that the City's regulations differ from the County regulations and the areas that are designated as floodplains at the time of annexation are the only areas that are subject to the City's regulations. • Been determined that City regulations apply at the time of annexation. Because this area is not regulated by the Land Use Code, Floodplain Administrator Marsha Hilmes- Robinson and Water Engineering Field Operations Manager Jon Haukaas are available for questions. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning of UE - Urban Estate. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Member Schmidt asked if the only way we can designate Public Open Lands is if the City owns it. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said the Public Open Lands District is large publicly owned parks and open lands which have a community wide emphasis. Applicant's Presentation Nick Haws with Northern Engineering said he helped facilitate some of the permits which occurred while the property was in the county. In response to questions that arose at the work session, he would like to clarify some of the history/background whether it's applicable to the annexation or not. They are valid questions in terms of what happened under the county's purview. In particular he'd like to dispel any potential concerns to public health or safety that may occur in the future as a result of perhaps different regulations. Haws reviewed and contrasted the historic FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Maps) maps from 1979, 1986, 1996, 1996 and 1986 overlaid at the project area, 1996 and 1986 overlaid at the project area and LOMAR-F fill area, and 2008. He noted in 1996 what use to be a concave shape has now bulged out Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2012 Page 9 large percentage of enclosed —multi -family, fraternity and sorority (with most already in existence), and lodging establishments. Everything else is either zero percent enclosed or 20 % at the most which in the example discussed earlier is only one or two. She doesn't see that as burdensome. We also have the alternative compliance and modifications to mitigate the issues. She thinks the Board can review that pretty carefully so lodging establishments and the multi -family residential are the only ones where it comes into play in a substantial fashion. With multi -family they do have a lot of options such as the garage or balconies. In the infill maybe there could be underground garages. She thinks the ordinance does support sustainability and the kinds of things that are important to us in Plan Fort Collins. She said given the one year review, it's worth a try and see how people receive it. Than certainly the market will tell us whether there have been a lot of issues. She's in support of the amendment. Member Stockover said he'd like to take one more shot at this and basically he's speaking to City Council. When you say it is really inconsequential because it's a "onesy/twosy" thing based on the example discussed; if we don't really need it because we only need one or two, why force it? And then you're adding a structure somewhere and you also have to have access to it so we're regulating that. He used an example of a case study of a college where they drew up the whole site plan for a college and they left the sidewalks off. The Dean asked why they left the sidewalks off and the response was he's not smart enough to know where the students will walk; let's just let them walk for a year and then we'll pave the paths. Maybe we should just let people figure out where to put their bikes. He rides his bike and parks where it's not an inconvenience to anyone. He is totally in favor of making Fort Collins a bike friendly area but people will adapt and it is not a pressing need. This is just too much for him to recommend. He feels passionately that this is the wrong tool. Motion passed 4:2 with Members Stockover and Hatfield dissenting. Project: Wood Street Annexation and Zoning No. 1 - # ANX120001 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Lannner County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE — Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O — Open in the Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E — Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL — Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. 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 be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be placed on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said the property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, Smith and Stockover Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Wray, Barnes, Ping -Small, Ex, Shepard, Lorson, Iverson, Langenberger, Gingerich, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Interim CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda Citizen participation: None Andy Smith asked if there were any audience or Board members who wanted to pull items from the Consent Agenda There were none. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the April 19, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 19, 2012 Hearing. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0:1 with Chair Smith abstaining. Discussion Agenda: 2. Outdoor Vendor Study 3. 2012 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code 4. Wood Street Annexation and Zoning No. 1 - # ANX120001 5. Bucking Horse Addition of Permitted Use, # APU 120001 6. Bucking Horse Overall Development Plan, # ODP 120001 Project: Outdoor Vendor Study Project Description Proposed changes to the Land Use Code (LUC) and to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code are the result of an outdoor vendor study conducted by staff to explore potential new code provisions for outdoor vendors in Fort Collins. The study began in fall 2011 in response to growing concerns and issues regarding food truck vendors. In the course of the study, staff found the need to add other vendor