HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOOD STREET ANNEXATION & ZONING - ANX120001 - CITY COUNCIL PACKET - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGCityof
/.,fort Collins
wenood
Date: May1, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager - Planning, Policy and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Cior- 1<C)
FM: Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator 4V �J
RE: Agenda Rem #13
Bender Relocation
In December 2011, City Council adopted a resolution to provide relocation assistance for those displaced due to
redevelopment. In January 2012 United Way of Larimer County and he City of Fort Collins entered an agreement
for Untied Way to administer and disburse funds associated with this program.
The first, and only recipients to date, have been residents of the Bender mobile home park. As of this week,14
households have been assisted and a total of $27,341 has been disbursed. To our knowledge there is one possible
payment pending in the amount of $709.
The majority of funds (approximately 20K) went towards trailer moving and set-up. A smaller amount
(approximately 4K) went towards rents and security deposits. Other expenses included set-up supplies and
storage. Once United Way has submitted a final report it will be copied to Council.
From a City perspective and in conversations with United Way it seems the administration of this program went
well.
The Citv's Floodplain regulations do not apply until after a property has been annexed. Under the
IGA between the City and Larimer County regarding develooment of properties eligible for
annexation, submission of a "develooment application" would trigger the annexation
requirement. However, it is our understanding that the review process for a LOMR-Fill while in
the County would not constitute a "develooment application," and that the annexation
requirement would not be triggered by the LOMR-Fill. However, an application to develop the
property would trigger the requirement to annex, and staff recommends that the City consider
ways to require compliance with the LOMR-Fill restrictions in Section 10-80(2) of the City Code in
connection with the annexation of the Property.
The developer has submitted three variations of the proposed development to be considered at a
Conceptual Review meeting on January 9 One option labeled as "preferred" would not violate
the LOMR-Fill regulation even if this property had already been annexed.
2. Are wildlife habitat destruction activities occurring on the property, or are they planned on
the property, and are those activities occurring with the appropriate federal, state, and local
permits?
Staff does not believe that habitat destruction activities are occurring at the site. Although staff
cannot speak for federal or state agencies to the best of staff's knowledge the developer is
complying with appropriate federal, state and local regulations. It is important to note that the
site is tremendously impacted by ore -existing activities, including housing as well as storage of
materials such as old cars scrap metal and a variety of other materials. The developer is
making significant efforts to remediate the site and improve its condition. In terms of vegetation,
the parcel contains primarily non-native grasses Russian Olive trees, and other non-native
species which do not significantly contribute to the ecological health of the Poudre River, though
they do provide refuge shading and other benefits to some species Staff has engaged in
preliminary discussions with the developer about Potential habitat enhancement activities. For
example the wetland on the southeast portion of the orooerty was delineated by the developer's
ecological consultant and flagoed in the field and subsequently surveyed No fill will be placed
into these wetlands The developer and staff have discussed and hope to pursue enhancement of
this wetland area e.g., increasing the wetland's size vegetation complexity and diversity, and
habitat value.
3. Are floodplain destruction activities occurring on the property, or are they planned on the
property, and are those activities occurring with the appropriate federal, state, and local permits?
Stormwater staff received conceptual plans this week in advance of a January 9 Development
Review. There are 3 conceptual alternatives that have been submitted, with varying degrees of
impact on the floodplain and/or Poudre River buffer. It appears that the preferred alternative
does not have fill in the floodplain but does have properties that encroach into the Poudre River
Euffer. Another alternative has less impact on the buffer, but shows fill and residential properties
on the area of the Proposed LOMR-Fill The submittal will be reviewed by City staff to determine
the impact on floodplain capacity and to what degree these plans meet City, State and Federal
regulations for floodplain.
4. If the property is annexed into the City, will it meet the City's floodplain, river buffer, and
natural resource regulations after it is annexed?
Staff will need to review the plans to make this determination Please see the comments above.
The developer will be at the Conceptual Review meeting on January 9 at which time staff can
review the lot layout and discuss the alternative development proposals in relation to these
regulations.
If we understand this ouestion correctly, we take it be a question about whether or not the
PropeLty ultimately will comply with City development standards As is standard practice,
development approval cannot occur without meeting the City's Land Use Code (which contains
the river buffer and natural resources regulations) and the City's Municipal Code (which contains
the floodplain regulations) As per an email from Lindsay Ex to Mr. Wockner on January 3 d staff
has requested a meeting with Mr. Wockner to see if he would like to meet the development
review staff so we can outline the development process, including when certain codes and
regulations apply and how a projectis ap rp oved.
5. As suggested in ]on's email below, is the developer currently excavating and filling In the
floodplain (or planning to) on the property using the County's floodplain regulations (which are
less strict than the City's) with the Intention of then later annexing the property into the City? If
yes, does this violate any City regulation or code? This does not violate any City Code. If yes,
what corrective action needs to take place now?
SAR #18007 — Bender Mobile Home Park Cleanup and Grading Work
Questions from Ben Manvel and Gary Wockner
RE: Agenda Item #13 — 912 Wood Street Initiating Resolution
Ben Manvel:
Meanwhile, I think Gary raises important questions. A couple of these have already been
addressed by ]on, but a basic problem remains for me.
If someone is going to develop a piece of property on the city fringe we do not allow them to
build the roads to County specifications before annexing so they can avoid the expense of proper
roads, do we?
The City and Larimer County have an IGA that agrees to apply similar street standards to any
development occurring in the GMA. The City and Count have not done a similar IGA regarding
floodplain regulations. The floodolain regulations generally match between the City and the
County as a result of the discussions in 2007, however one key difference that this development
highlights is the Cites additional regulation against the use of land removed from the floodplain
via LOMR-Fill process for residential or mixed use development. Larimer County does not have
that same requirement.
So if we have City regulations that forbid the type of land filling that is being done on this
urupei ry, why would we allow that filling to be done and then annex the property?
The City regulations do not prohibit the type of work being conducted. The Code language makes
it so that we do not recognize/adopt a LOMR-Fill man revision that is used for residential
property. The exact same work could be done under City regulations, but the developer would
first be required to perform and obtain approval of a full FEMA LOMR process, which would cost
morg and also add significant additional time to the process.
What will be the impacts on the Poudre and properties in the City?
This is a classic example of "Brownfield Redevelopment". For example, there are presently 14
mobile homes and two buildings that encroach into the Poudre River Buffer all of which wflL be
removed. This can and should have a positive imoact to the river and the Citv when done right.
Are the rules for real or for show?
If tLis does not violate our standards, I think we need to change those rules.
I hope staff can take another hard look at this exchange of emails and make sure that complete
answers are given to questions 1 through 5, not hiding behind the fact that this property will not
be in the City for the next few months. I do not have confidence that the County is paying
sufficient attention to what is happening.
Gary Wockner:
Here are the questions we'd like to get answered:
1. Are dredge and fill activities occurring on the property, or are they planned on the property,
and are those activities occurring with the appropriate federal, state, and local permits?
Staff reviewed very early revisions of the development grading plans. It is our understanding that
the intent is to obtain a LOMR-Fill prior to annexation We will request the County send us a
copy of the most current grading plans submitted with their floodplain permit. From this y&
should be able to determine what are the appropriate permits for the project and follow up to
ensure these have been obtained.
John Stokes, the Natural Areas Department Director, has responded as follows:
"Mr. Wockner asked why the City didn't "try harder" to purchase the Bender property
for a Natural Area. Bottom line: The City made an offer to the previous landowner and
he rejected the offer. The Natural Areas Department can only acquire land from willing
sellers. Natural Areas does not know why the offer was rejected, but a safe assumption
is a difference of opinion as to value and liabilities. The property had (and has) very
significant clean up and housing issues. In addition to these known issues, there also
was the distinct possibility of unknown environmental liabilities. The Natural Areas
Department did not want to end up with an expensive site clean up at taxpayer
expense. In fact, at the time, the Natural Areas Department approach was similar to
that of the current owner, i.e. develop a portion of the property to offset the substantial
and unusual costs associated with its acquisition."
In addition, SAR #18007 (where questions were previously asked of staff by Councilmember
Manvel and Gary Wockner) is also provided.
3. An update to Council regarding the Bender Mobile Home relocation funds— Please see
the enclosed memo from Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator with an update
regarding the relocation process and funding.
�.F,�`ort of
MEMORANDUM
May 1, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning, Development and
Transportation
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
kgov. com/currentplanning
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City '4
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Developmen and Transportation Director
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Interim Director
FM: Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner
RE: Agenda Item #13 —Wood Street Annexation Initiating Resolution
The 912 Wood Street Initiating Resolution for Annexation is on tonight's consent agenda.
For additional clarification prior to the meeting, staff is providing the following items:
1. Changing the title of the Annexation to be "Wood Street Annexation"
2. April 30, 2012 Leadership Team Meeting Follow -Up, and
3. An update to Council regarding the Bender Mobile Home relocation funds.
1. Changing the title of the Annexation to be "Wood Street Annexation"
Due to requirements by the Citys Surveying Department, addresses cannot be used in the
title of the annexation. This policy was established to eliminate indexing inconsistencies
and/or errors.
Based on a discussion with the applicant, the name of the Annexation will now be changed
to "Wood Street Annexation." If the item remains on consent, the adoption of the consent
agenda will adopt the resolution as revised.
2. April 30, 2012 Leadership Team Meeting Follow -Up
At Mondays Leadership Meeting, staff was provided with the following information:
"Council is asking for an explanation as to why Natural Areas did not buy the property.
Also, the item may get pulled and staff is asked to have staff available to answer
questions about the suitability for the property for natural areas and its relationship to
the Poudre River."
1