Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERDALE ANNEXATION & ZONING - 27-05 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 18 Member Lingle commented for the record that the findings are very clear on what we evaluate an annexation on and it does not include whether bringing a property in is beneficial to the city in terms of tax generation on a drain on tax services. He thought that was clearly an area that should be left for City Council to discuss and he thought it was irrelevant at the Planning and Zoning Board level for this annexation and all the ones that may be coming forth in the future. Member Craig commented that with all the issues that are going to come up with the Southeast enclave, we are going to end up taking them piece by piece because they are going to come to the Board. What bothers her about this piece of property and she sees it also down in the southeast is yes, they pay impact fees, but it is proven when it is residential, for every dollar they pay to the city, it costs the city a dollar and a quarter to maintain them. What we are going to run into in the southeast as well what she really feels this little piece sitting out here is to maintain services out there is going to be more than the dollar and quarter. She wondered when we start taking in these little pieces of residential what the benefit of our doing it, so she is not going to support this. Member Carpenter would be supporting the motion. She appreciates all the residents coming out and encouraged them to talk to Council as well. When and if we end up with a development plan, come back and talk to them, they do want to here from them. She would just like the residents to understand that they certain criteria to go by and in this case it does meet all the criteria. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. ect: Recommendation to City Council for an Amen to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Project Description: On May 19, 2005, Tanning and Zoning Board ted to approvetTie annexation of the Airpark Village but commendation of Industrial zoning versus t pplica reference for Employment zoning. The applicant has re ubbmitted a request for Employment zoning whi quires an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Pla verlay Framework Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 17 Member Craig asked if we do annex this piece in and we do get the three years, at the end of three years, Mr. Kaplan decides to develop, because this site is in the city are they required to offer him the emergency access. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it would be off site and we could not require Waterdale to grant Mr. Kaplan's property anything. Member Carpenter asked if there were not connectivity standards within the city that there be connections through Waterdale. Planner Shepard replied that we can only require the project that is in front of us at the time and hypothetically it would be Mr. Kaplan's parcel. The way we would require connectivity is we would require him to stub streets to his property line. Member Carpenter asked if actuality it would not have to connect. Planner Shepard replied not if we cannot successfully negotiate on the other side of the property line a connection. Member Torgerson stated that this clearly meets the requirements for annexation and he moved for approval of Waterdale, First Annexation and Zoning, #27-05A and the associated zoning as a recommendation to Council. Member Stockover asked for a friendly amendment stating because it is a recommendation to Council that he would like City Council to know that the Board does want them to pursue extending the agreement. Member Torgerson had a problem with that — the impact fees that the developer wishes to avoid paying and obviously will have to be passed on to the homes, fund Police Stations, Libraries, Parks and fund all the things that those that live out there utilize but don't pay for and he would not accept that friendly amendment. There was not a second so the motion died. Member Stockover moved to recommend the Waterdale, First Annexation and Zoning, #27-05A for approval with the understanding that city staff and Council are still going to try and negotiate an extension to the Power of Attorney that is in place but in risk of expiring. He also wanted to reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusion on Page 5 in support of the motion. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 16 Ms. Sprague asked if it would be something of the size of an alley. Planner Shepard replied that the PFA likes 20 feet of width of unobstructed access and an alley would not do that. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Carpenter asked that staff comment on Mr. Kaplan's testimony. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that during the development review process many of the residents will be here to make sure that the Board makes certain that it stays a guarded situation so that the public does not just ignore the situation and flood through their community. He thought that what Mr. Kaplan has said is that as amongst Mr. Gallenstein's property here — he thinks he leases these pad sites to the owners and then the owners buy their homes — he did not know how all the taxes work but the taxes must be paid on the pad sites by Mr. Gallenstein. Mr. Gallenstein responded that the property was a cutting edge property, which he worked very closely with Freddie Mac, which is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the US. They pioneered a 35 year lease hold property where through very restrictive covenants and controls they developed a community for seniors and these are both manufactured and modular units that are owned by the individual homeowners. They enter into a 35 year lease agreement, which is five years beyond the 30 year mortgage, which is what Freddie Mac stipulated. It is deemed real property, both the house and the underlying land and that was a requirement by Freddie Mac. He has negotiated with Larimer County to make sure that indeed did happen. That improves the marketability of the home. In Larimer County, the tax rate for personal property as well as residential is the same tax rate, it just depends on the assigned value. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that in terms of Mr. Kaplan's remarks. In a nut shell what he is saying as it relates to his property, the Waterdale property and their annexation into the city and the city's cooperation with that is that if we don't work together, none of this happens because he will withdraw his annexation and then this won't annex because of the lack of contiguity and then the Interstate Business Park and 1-25 and Mulberry won't annex and so forth. That is why we have worked together to draft a new Power of Attorney that gives Mr. Gallenstein his three years of development in the County which would be to his benefit as well as people who already have invested in that community. If he and Mr. Kaplan can work their arrangement out so that Mr. Kaplan won't withdraw his annexation, then all the pieces of this puzzle will come together all right, if not we will just have to wait and see how it will come out. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 15 The only other way he can get an emergency access connection is to go through a natural area, which he did not think was advisable. He could potentially go to the west, which means he would have to go through a floodway area, an area that has been designated by the County as having unique natural characteristics and the cost to do that would be exorbitant and is not something he wants to do to that environment. He has offered to the developer of Waterdale that he would withdraw his annexation if he could get an emergency access connection. He would give him those three years for his build out period. If the city and Mr. Gallenstein unilaterally negotiate an extension to his annexation agreement, where the city gives him three years, he does not have any leverage and if he does not have any leverage he will withdraw his annexation because he does not have a piece of property that is developable. If he withdraws his annexation, they the Interchange Business Park does not annex and that means that the northeast corner of 1-25 and Mulberry will develop in the County. He is supporting the three year delay for the annexation of Waterdale and he asked that the city allow himself and Mr. Gallenstein to negotiate the emergency access and not to jump into an automatic extension because the city is concerned that if they lose this opportunity for five years that they might have to go to court if they annex this. Member Schmidt asked Mr. Kaplan if he already had access through the diagonal road shown on the map in Clydesdale. Mr. Kaplan replied that was primary access and the PFA requires that you have a secondary access and there is really no other way for him to accomplish secondary access. Sue Green, resident of Sunflower stated that she bought there for two reasons, one she could afford it, and it was single family dwelling. The access he wants goes right through the community for emergency vehicles. Once that road is there won't other vehicles be allowed to use it, not just emergency, and then we are no longer a community that is gated and secured. She asked for the three year build out and gives the 90 some people more of a chance to have affordable housing for seniors. They are a community that all of Colorado is looking at because of what they have. She did not feel that the Board would want to put an emergency vehicle or road right through the middle of the community. Donna Sprague, resident of Sunflower asked that emergency access be explained. Planner Shepard replied that typically throughout the city, situations where the second point of required emergency access for PFA and ambulance is controlled in such a way that only the emergency provider can gain access. This access is only needed if the primary access is blocked. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 14 Planner Shepard replied that it is called the REA Service Rights Fee and is negotiated by REA and successfully passed by the State Legislature, kind of a buyout provision. It is true that it is a ten year period. The converse to that is that our rates are lower, by the time you take our lower rate combined with the REA Service Rights charge, it is almost comparable to what you are paying already. Les Kaplan, applicant of the previous annexation stated that without complicating things he wanted to give the Board a bigger picture. He feels that no one would be here this evening if it were not for the fact that he initiated his annexation for a number of strategic reasons. One is that it sets the stage for the city to be able to annex the Interchange Business Park, which is a revenue producing property for the city. This is also something stated when he submitted this annexation petition previously. Related to that is the fact that once that annexation takes place of the Interchange Business Park, it creates the contiguity for the city to annex property north of that, which is at the northeast Interchange of 1-25 and Mulberry, which happens to be shown on the 1-25 Sub Area Plan as a major activity center. That property would be an enormous asset to the city if it were developed in the city. His annexation sets in motion those two annexations. The second reason he initiated his annexation was in order to put pressure on Waterdale, on Sunflower and he would try and be as frank as he could. When the Waterdale property was approved in the County there were comments that were made by the Fort Collins Planning Department indicating that they believe that there was not proper connectivity between that development as a gated community and properties to the south, which is now his property. When the Waterdale property was recently amended to increase the number of pads by 17, Cameron Gloss attended the County Commissioners Meeting and appealed to them to make as a condition for approving that amendment the introduction of an emergency access connection to his property. The Planning Commission, although acknowledging the fact that that would be good planning, did not include that as a condition in their recommendation to the County Commissioners because they did not know if they had the legal right to do so. What he is hoping with his annexation is to be able to accomplish the emergency access connection through Waterdale because for him to annex these 37 acres at this time without having an emergency access connection makes his property undevelopable. The Waterdale property really represents the only really economically feasible means for him to get an emergency access connection. Unless he waits for the property to the south of him to develop, the Galatia Annexation, which will have a lot of difficulty developing because of the need to improve the Prospect and 1-25 interchange. If he waits for that to happen, he could be waiting an indefinite time period. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 13 development is not finished, the base price of these homes will have to go up and that will mean the completion of this development will take forever. The people who were intended to be in this development will not be able to afford to be there and people who are already there will be forced to leave. Member Schmidt asked when doing building permits in an area that it is presumed that all the roads are going to stay private drives, do they still pay into the Street Oversizing Fund. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Schmidt asked if they would be paying for road improvements right in front of the house because they would be maintaining those themselves. Planner Shepard replied that the Street Oversizing Fee is a building permit fee that goes into a city wide fund. That is very different than the developer doing the local street improvements within the internal streets of a subdivision. Jim Mokler, who lives on the north side of Mulberry just west of their main entry in the old Boxberger place suggested to the Board that they delay their annexation for three years, work through the agreement with Mr. Gallenstein because it is a nice answer to this problem. Ultimately, he will be the developer of Interchange Business Park which is being continued tonight and while they signed the same annexation agreement that Mr. Gallenstein did, they knew this day was coming and their preference would be to not annex into the city because every building permit that they pull gets a lot more expensive and taxes from commercial properties go up a lot more than residential. They are heavily impacted by that and ultimately there really is not many dollars that come from this community and there are a lot of dollars that come from Interchange Business Park, which is about to be annexed next. He was there to say that they are willing participants in that process and they would like to work cooperatively with the city on some longer term things that they have already met with the city about. It would involve almost two miles of 1-25 frontage and so they would like to get into a cooperative spirit with the city to try to encourage the development of retail tax dollars and employment districts. Marshal Van Thor, owner of land in the Interchange Business Park and owner of a business there had a question regarding city of Fort Collins utilities when annexed and that the city would have to pay a percentage of the bill back to REA for a period of ten years for existing customers and five years for new customers. He stated that it was to be charged back to the owner of the property and he wondered if that was the case. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 12 he has a process with the County that is working well for him now. At this time, staff is asking that the Board take favorable action on this in case the other does not work out. Member Schmidt asked if Mr. Gallenstein was correct in stating that if his parcel is not annexed, the other parcel that is northwest of him would still be annexable, in which case, his parcel surrounded and the city could take him in three years anyway. Planner Shepard replied yes it would be possible to annex the Interchange Business Park without the contiguity by Waterdale, but no there is very strong likelihood that Waterdale would not become an enclave. PUBLIC INPUT Al Corbett, Sunflower resident stated that they have all the amenities in Sunflower and what could the city offer them other than them paying more taxes. Seventy percent of the residents are on a fixed income. He called and got a tax estimate based on today's mill levy and it was over $100 per household. He stated that the city cannot bring anything more to the plate than they already have. Member Carpenter asked staff about the taxes to these homeowners. Planner Shepard replied that the standard generic answer without looking at individual tax bills and mill levies is that if you are in the County right now, you pay a separate mill levy line item to the PFA, upon annexation, that goes away. It gets replaced by a city of Fort Collins mill levy and he is told they are very close. Deputy City Attorney added that there will be a difference in Sales Tax. Member Lingle said he was not familiar with the infrastructure improvements that are there, is there anything that they would be adopting that would be considered substandard to current city standards in terms of streets and sidewalks. Planner Shepard replied that the sidewalks in Sunflower are attached instead of detached and there is curb and gutter. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department added that the roadway systems are all private drives and they are not publicly dedicated to her knowledge so they would continue to be maintained by the HOA. Marilyn Corbett, Sunflower resident stated that they all realize that annexation will happen eventually no matter where they go. They chose this community because of the lower cost of a permanent place where they could stay and afford. The problem is if this Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Gallenstein replied that the slide did not show Carriage Parkway coming up and intersecting to State Highway 14. There is a proposed traffic light there, of which when he was going through the planning process, he was one of the first developers to stand up and say he would participate voluntarily because he believes in that light. That money has been paid by him for his share of that light. The light has not been built because after four projects were approved, the State of Colorado on Highways changed the standard for traffic lights. A traffic light went from $150,000 to $300,000 to in excess of $500,000 per light due to wind standards and things like that. He thought that was the delay because now the State will have to participate in putting in that light. The other thing is in each of his building permits, there is a contribution to a fund that will continue the monies that have been approved for the reconfiguration of Highway 14 and 1-25. Member Schmidt asked how many building permits were left before they were built out. Mr. Gallenstein replied that their predicted build out is 191 homes and they have 111 permits issued to date. The build out is two to three years. Member Lingle asked if the annexation agreement was disclosed to the residents who have purchased lots in the subdivision. Mr. Gallenstein replied that the document is of public record and is recorded at the courthouse. He stated that as people asked if this property would be annexed, we explained to them that it depended on whether or not they become contiguous with the city boundaries and once that happened they could. Chairperson Meyer asked what brought this annexation forward at this time. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that this annexation gains its contiguity from the State Highway 14 Annexation; in addition, the annexation agreement that the County required Mr. Gallenstein to execute is a 20-year power of attorney to the City Clerk. There is a provision in it that says that if for any reason that 20-year power of attorney is shortened because of the statute that exists that says that these powers of attorney can only last for five years, then it is good for five years. He would like to not have that headache worrying whether it is a 20 year or a 5 year. If it is a 5 year, it expired on June 29, 2005. So, the City Clerk took action before June 29th to petition for annexation before it expired, so it would be a valid petition for annexation under her power of attorney. But, as Mr. Gallenstein explained, he has been authorized by staff to draft a new power of attorney and forget about the old agreement and use the new 5-year power of attorney but would be un-exercisable for the first three years in order to accommodate the concerns he has expressed regarding the building permits and how Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 10 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. This is a voluntary annexation and to clarify that, this annexation has been voluntarily brought forward per the annexation agreement that was entered into by the developer several years ago, which designates the power of attorney to annex the parcel to the City Clerk. Paul Gallenstein, applicant and also the developer of Sunflower Subdivision spoke to the Board. He stated that Sunflower is a 55 plus, fixed income senior community. When he proposed this development, it was required of him to be able to move through the process to sign the document that Ted mentioned to the Board; otherwise they would not have been allowed to move forward. This project and the fact that it is here and very successful speaks to the need in the market place for such a community. As the developer of this property, he has worked very hard to control his expenses, he runs with very lean crews. The purpose of that is to control expenses because they are trying to build as affordable type project as they possibly can. If they annex at this time, the potential for their building permit fees will increase dramatically and it will hurt the people that they were intending to serve. He has to pass those expenses on, he cannot absorb those. He is more than willing to annex in the future, he would just like to build out the project so that everyone is given a fair sporting chance at cost effective housing. He believed that they were in negotiations with the city of Fort Collins to achieve a 3- year delay in the annexation. He has received a letter from the Deputy City Attorney with a durable Power of Attorney that would delay things and cancel the existing agreement. He stated that was currently on his attorney's desk and he is pushing to get it reviewed as hard as he can. Mr. Gallenstein asked the Board to deny this request, but on the other hand he knows that the city is in need of revenue for its tax base. He asked for Planner Shepard to let the audience know the increase in actual taxes on a typical home in Sunflower for the resident it would be very helpful. He stated that Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director had reported to him that it would be a fairly low impact once they are built out. He would like to petition this Board to have understanding and patience. His property is not in any form in the way of annexing other properties in the surrounding area. Member Schmidt asked the applicant if all his obligations, as far as road improvements have been met with Larimer County or is it still by a building permit basis. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 9 Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied no, not for annexation, there would have to public access for development. Ms. Sprague asked that if they can't cross Boxelder Creek with road access where that land sits and if he only has access through a private neighborhood, which is Clydesdale community, would that road be large enough to be an arterial street,or a collector street to access the prop�eoy. She did not see any other access fort s property. Would that be up to the developer when a project is submitted? Chairperson Meyer responded yes Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that the project may come before this Board depending on the nature of the proposal. Ms. Sprague also was concerned wit ,"ox6qer Creek. Public input closed. Member Craig stated that sfie would not be voting for th1s, she felt that when Mr. Kaplan came before the Board ' `2002, the Board appreciated the fact that he was going to dedicate 10 acres to space to follow through with the I-25 Sub Area Plan as we so wanted. That was part of why the Board said that LMN was appropriate there because of the trade off. She felt that she understands why he wants the most value for his land but if she heapdhim correctly, he has had a year since he subdivided and yet he has not gone about doing anything about this conservation easement. There is the potential concern that he may develop in the County with C, Commercial, which goes completely against the 1-25 Sub Area Plan that he told the Board in 2002 that he bought into. The motion was approved 5-2, with Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. Project: Waterdale First Annexation and Zoning, #27-05 Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 38.69 acre parcel. The site is also known as Sunflower Manufactured Home Subdivision and located south of East Mulberry Street approximately one-half mile east of Interstate 25. The recommended zoning is LMN. Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood which is in conformance with the I- 25 Sub Area Plan. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Judy Meyer Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 490-2172 Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Schmidt, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, Stockover and Lingle. Staff Present: Wray, Eckman, Shepard, Gloss, Buffington and Deines. Citizen Participation: None. Director of Current Planning Pete Wray reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 191h and June 16, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ05-09 — Easement Dedication. 3. Resolution PZ05-10 — Easement Dedication. 4. #32-981 Poudre Valley Health System — Harmony Medical Campus, 5th Filing, Healthy Living Center — Project Development Plan. 5. Choice City Business Park — Out of City Service Request. 6. #18-05B Kingdom Hall — Overall Development Plan. 7. #36-96N Mulberry and Lemay Crossings, Filing Two, Centennial Bank — Major Amendment. 8. #20-OOB State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road — Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 9. #17-04A Interchange Lands First — Annexation and Zoning. (Continued) 10. #18-04A Interchange Lands Second — Annexation and Zoning. (Continued) 11. #27-05A Waterdale First — Annexation and Zoning. 12. #16-05 Airpark Village — Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Items 4, 5 and 8 were pulled for discussion. Member Lingle moved to approve consent items 2, 3, 6 and 7. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.