Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIRPARK VILLAGE - ODP - 16-05A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 10 Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Cameron Gloss, Director Brigitte Schmidt, Chair Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 9 Member Lingle would like to propose a condition of approval that the FAA be included in a review of all PDPs. He'd like them to weigh in and give testimony or provide a memo relative to air space requirements. Chair Schmidt agreed. She also thought market conditions could change. Maybe with a change in market conditions by the time the residential is built out, there may be some agreement that it would not be conducive to and compatible with the helicopter operations nearby. Shepard agreed —the OPD can be amended. Member Lingle said he's a little torn given the issues that have been identified but he feels his hands are tied given the criteria for ODP reviews. A little down the road, he'd like the Board to add criteria that looks at compatibility standards that could be applied (particularly in an infill scenario) at an ODP level when not a lot of specificity is offered. With reservation, Member Lingle moved to approve Airpark Village Overall Development Plan, # 16-05A based on the findings of fact on page 7 of the staff report with the condition that the FAA be included in any preliminary development plan development review process. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Chair Schmidt asked if the covenant and air space issues would be presented with the PDP. Shepard responded yes. Member Rollins asked if the condition of approval would be satisfied if the FAA provided overall comments relative to the public heliport. Lingle responded he'd like to know that what's being proposed has been evaluated from an objective technical perspective by the proper authority. Eckman cautioned the FAA's evaluation may not be at a detailed project level. Chair Schmidt said that would be okay if they provided the general rules that would provide staff with the guidance we'd need for evaluating the project. Jones said the applicant would be willing to have each of their PDPs submitted to the FAA for their review. They certainly want to follow all the applicable FAA regulations. They're a little worried if the FAA does not respond does that mean they're in limbo. Lingle said he was not sure of the process but he had the impression that staff would take lead in making the request for review to the FAA (similar to what they do with Public Service.) If they get no response, they get no response. Jones said they agree to the condition. Chair Schmidt agrees with Lingle with regard to limitations at the ODP level. When they get to the PDPs, however, it will be a lot more specific. Regardless of the FAA rules, it will not negate compatibility issues. The Board feels sincerely that the ODP gives no vested right and they look forward to seeing the PDP proposals to learn at a detail level what it will actually look like and how compatible that will be with the uses. Motion was approved 4:0. Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 8 Chair Schmidt wondered if the easements were for right of way or for flight space. Eckman replied that he was not that familiar with the specifics but he would imagine flight space because some of the helicopter businesses are a party to the complaint. Member Lingle asked Shepard to speak to the ODP and vested rights. Is there some expectation set that when the master plan is approved there are additional development rights down the road --does it become difficult to deny subsequent submittals? Shepard responded when staff recommends approval, approval with conditions or denial of a PDP it's with the knowledge that it warrants a particular recommendation —not that it specifically follows the ODP. They think that it's good planning to have the CDP —it provides the basic framework between annexation and the PDP especially on a 150 acre project that will come in phases. An ODP helps in keeping all the puzzle pieces together. Staff require PDPs to conform to its approved ODP and if it doesn't that's a reason to make a certain recommendation to the Board. Director Gloss added that the ODP does not create vested development rights. That doesn't happen until the PDP stage and the final plan is executed and recorded. It just sets the various components (creates a framework.) The CDP shows the distribution of uses and the street network. Under a Type I or Type II review, there is still the opportunity to condition approvals at each PDP phase. Member Lingle voiced some reservations about how the street network and flight path as proposed would work for the development of property to the south. He wondered what reassurances there are that would create a workable plan for all the affected parties. Director Gloss said the street network that's shown is not exact --it is not engineered alignments of roadways just a connection between two points. At the PDP stage, it'll need to interface with the local street system and meet the block standards. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be deviations to the road design when you get into the detailed work —there needs to be a judgment whether at that point they meet street connectivity standards. (Until you get into the detailed work you don't know how the roadways will be constructed and aligned.) Chair Schmidt agreed. She thought if the ODP was approved and later on they discovered they need to make changes it could create other problems. For example if road alignments needed to be changed and building heights needed to be elevated, it would create obstacle problems for the flight path. Chair Schmidt noted the ODP stage is good in that the applicant gets a chance to hear where the Board's concerns are and where they're coming from so when they come in with their PDP they have some sense of direction. Member Rollins agreed the ODP is critical between the annexation and the PDP. It provides the board with evolutionary information. For example, the Board would know they are committed to an arterial and will have a connection to the street systems adjacent to them. Putting aside the airspace issue, she thinks the information they have at this phase is good enough. She does, however, look forward to hearing from the FAA at the PDP stage with regard to the operation of the heliports and their right to air space (as the affidavit from FAA's Craig Sparks does not speak to that.) Member Lingle clarified he is not opposed to the ODP stage. What is trying to do is find justification for approval of the ODP the way it's presented. Chair Schmidt voiced her concerns relative to the LMN zoning on the western portion of the project -- close to one of the heliports. From testimony tonight, the helicopter businesses do not have any plan for moving away at this point. Why at the ODP phase would we approve something when sooner or later it there may be compatibility issue. She's relatively sure the business component can work but she has reservations about the residential component. Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 7 Eckman said Land Use Code Section 3.4.9 addresses health risks. At the PDP stage, if the City or the applicant have any credible evidence of hazards; then studies will take place with a goal of mitigating any hazards. Loren Maxey has been in the airpark area since 1964. The airpark was built in 1966/67. He knows for a fact that there are no old cars or any debris under the runways or any of the property. In 1966, the base of the runway came from fill from the upper part of the lower triangle and the top off of that base is from the Mason Street area when they lowered the railroad tracks. End of Public Input Member Lingle asked if compatibility standards (LUC Section 3.5) applied at the ODP level. Eckman replied yes and no. The Codes says in the ODP Standards Section (2.3.2(h)(1)) it shall be consistent with the general development standards of Article 3 that can be applied at the level of detail of an Overall Development Plan submittal. There is one provision in 3.5.1 Q) that speaks to operational physical compatibility standards. At PDP approval, conditions can be placed on new development to ensure compatibility with existing neighboring uses. Number 2 states such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, location on a site of activities that have general negative impact on adjacent uses such as glare and noise ("such as" being not -limiting.) It's best applied at the PDP level given the greater amount of detail required. Lingle asked if at the ODP level, there need not be a finding that an ODP is not detrimental to the public good. Eckman replied no. Chair Schmidt asked for a review of the discussion at the time the property was annexed —particularly the conversations related to residential use. Did City Council say it could only be a mixed use or more apartment type residential? Staff member Shepard said the residential restrictions in the employment zone only are: primary use is a mixed used dwelling unit (a primary use building that contains residential) secondary use is regular residential (multi -family town homes) that are not a part of a mixed use dwelling and it can be no more than 25% of the project. In this ODP (northwest corner) there is LMN zoning where there would be no such restrictions. Eckman asked if the Board had received a letter from Douglas Konkel? They had not. Eckman read the letter into the record: "I represent the plaintiffs in a Larimer County District Court Case # OCV 9580, Pernicka, et.al. v. Community Air Park Association, Inc. and Airpark Village, LLC. Enclosed is a copy of Judge Williams' recent order. My clients object to the recent development plan to the extent it will interfere with their continued use of the airport. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience." Additionally, there was a letter from Schleuter, Mahoney & Ross, PC which had as an attachment an affidavit from the FAA (Craig Sparks). In the sworn affidavit Craig Sparks said the airport is closed. Eckman said the City is not a party to this litigation. Chair Schmidt thought it might be helpful if Eckman could provide general information about the lawsuit. Eckman reported the parties are in an argument in court whether some of the neighboring property owners have easement rights across the airport. Judge Williams ruled against a summary judgment motion by the developer --there should be a trial because there's enough controversy and ambiguity to warrant one. The court has not ordered the applicant from moving forward on their ODP application. Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 6 buy into that area are already going to be aware of that. Additionally, they plan to have the parking lots behind the buildings closest to the flight path so they will not have any obstacles. We're offering all this as an accommodation to them. He doesn't see why the City would restrict development other than what we've volunteered to do. Member Lingle asked Goff if they'd not have to comply with FAA guidelines. Goff responded they are guidelines not requirements. If they chose not to follow them, there would be no penalty (no action against them.) Member Lingle asked staff if that was also their understanding —there would not be a FAA requirements for avoiding obstruction to the heliports that are currently operating there now. Hansen of Century Helicopters said theirs is a public heliport not a private heliport so the guidelines will have to be followed. There was a situation in San Diego recently where a developer had to remove a portion of a building because he had built the building too high. The FAA will get involved and if a development encroaches on a public use heliport, there will be restrictions. Chair Schmidt said that review would probably take place at a PDP review when building heights were specifically defined. Jones wanted to remind the Board of what the purview is at this juncture. There are the ODP criteria and extensive staff review. They gotten feedback from staff that they comply with all CDP criteria. The helicopter issue is a PDP issue. He'd recommend that tonight we focus in on the ODP criteria rather than getting sidetracked. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman acknowledged that he does not know FAA regulations but if there are regulations that apply to this development because of the public heliport, than he would recommend the Board's recognizes those regulations at the time of the Project Development Plan review. It would need to be proven what is applicable and what would require compliance. If the City were to approve a plan that violated federal FAA regulations, our approval of the plan would not trump those regulations. Beverly Weise, 1924 E. Vine Drive, says the helicopters come very close to the neighborhood. She thinks there should be stricter requirements so they don't come as close as their tree tops. She's not against the development; rather she's here seeking the Board's help in confirming what she's heard with regard to potential contamination and how that might affect residents in that development. She's heard that was trash like old cars are under the runways. If it's true, wouldn't there be some sort of environmental mitigation that would need to occur? Finally, if the developer is proposing a trolley system, will the taxpayers of Fort Collins be forced to help pay for it? Goff said they have been doing some soil analysis work. They have found there's a lot of sugar beet refuse. No old cars or batteries were found. A 130 foot wide (800,000 square foot) flood channel installation is planned within the next 12 months that will go down five feet. They've been under negotiations relative to flood channel easements for the past 18 months and have just recently reached an agreement. If there is something there, it will be uncovered. Goff said they do have a trolley system planned that will operate on the circumference of the project. It will probably start at the existing hangars and terminal. The trolley system will be created and operated by a district. In fact, the City is in the process of setting up standards for that district. It is his hope that the district will be in place by the end of the year with roads and some infrastructure to follow. The trolley will be a part of the last phases of planning. Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 5 Chair Schmidt asked for a comparison of the duration of noise of helicopters to a train going down Mason. Hansen said they have upwards of 20 operations (take off and landings) a day. The helicopters are on and the noise takes place during the whole process. There could be 5 helicopters lined up all daylong. Schmidt at what would the decibel level would be. Hansen responded 110-115 dB. Chair Schmidt asked, aside from an airport, what would Hansen consider compatible development. He responded light industrial at the appropriate heights. He thinks residential should be avoided to avoid the complaints. Century has been in operation at this location since 1978—and before that helicopters have been at the airport since 1970. People still complain about the noise. Robert Dean is a property owner in the nearby industrial park and part owner of Front Range Helicopters. Front Range Helicopters operates a commercial and flight training helicopter business. All the current access is critical to the operation of test and training flights. Their heliport currently meets the FAA guidelines due to the open space above the Airpark. Safety is one issue but it's not the only issue. The industrial park is a very busy commercial center. In his opinion, this is a poor. location for high density employment —it should have been kept industrial due to the noise, the noxious fumes, the heavy vehicle traffic, and the three active commercial heliports. Fort Collins has long been a center for helicopter activities and has seen rapid growth in all phases for customers around the world. It does not benefit our community for you to approve a plan that creates a hardship for these existing businesses or future residents who might be convinced to live there. Member Wetzler asked what would be the impact to Front Range Helicopter if they were restricted to the proposed 4,000 foot flight path. Dean replied that once up they select the safest route. As mentioned earlier, if the performance is low you cannot climb or land as rapidly. On a good day a helicopter can go vertical. On other occasions it's a dangerous operation because your margins for safety are not there —it's not `what helicopters should do it's what they can do." Member Wetzler asked where they conduct their flight training. Dean responded they basically fly around the airpark area. Sometimes they'll fly to other areas. Early on in the learning process, they repeatedly practice approaches and landings. They normally cruise at a 500 foot level. Chair Schmidt asked what their hours of operation are. Dean replied they operate seven days a week mostly during daylight hours. They do occasionally have night flying as FAA requires all pilots to have that training. Chair Schmidt asked if one helipad is on a building and others are on the ground, does that create a safety hazard. Dean replied not really. They operate on a see and avoid FAA condition. Usually there's a communications protocol agreement that you operate on a particular radio frequency. Chair Schmidt asked when construction takes place will it change the wind dynamic. Dean responded that the FAA safety guidelines address that —mostly it's a clear flight path but any time you have buildings encroaching on a heliport, the opportunities for winds you don't expect come in and can be dangerous in the landing and take -off phases. Lloyd Goff, the developer of Airpark Village, was a little surprised as how the controversy has grown. It seems as if we're making a mountain out of mole hill --heliports are everywhere. We've voluntarily planned for a flight path for ascending, descending, and emergency landings. He didn't understand how complaints from residents were going to hurt the heliport businesses. He was willing to put covenants in place so that no one could take legal action. The noise is already there and people who Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 4 Chair Schmidt asked where the mixed use would start and where the westernmost heliport was located. Jones indicated the northernmost part of the development was for mixed used residential and the westernmost heliport was center and south of that area. Schmidt wondered if acceptance of the noise due to the proximity of helicopters landing and taking off could be extended to renters in that residential area. Jones responded that as much as it could logistically occur, his client was willing to facilitate that. Chair Schmidt asked Director Gloss how the present noise ordinance would deal with complaints for helicopter noise in that area. Gloss responded that aircraft is exempt from the standards. Member Lingle asked staff what is the zoning for the property south of the Airpark? Shepard responded it is in unincorporated Larimer County and is zoned industrial. Lingle asked if staff were aware of height allowances in that zone. They were not. Lingle noted that if redeveloped would occur they would likely be annexed into the city. Shepard replied the area south of the project is in the East Mulberry Sub -area Plan and in the Growth Management Area. Any redevelopment would result in annexation into the city if it was contiguous to city limits. If they are not contiguous they would develop in the County to city street standards. Chair Schmidt asked if land in the East Mulberry Subarea Plan was annexed into the City would it remain industrial. Jones responded yes. Public Input Michael Hansen, General Manager of Century Helicopters —operates a helicopter maintenance facility on the easternmost portion of the air park. He understands there will be development in that area but said there needs to be a lot of room and plenty of forethought given to noise and safety. Unlike PVH which has 1-2 operations a week, they have 20 operations per day. Most of the operations are test flights which can involve a lot of risk. Because they are test flights, you can imagine all does not always go as planned. Additionally, he thinks helicopter noise is more on average of 110-115 dB. Many of their customers have military helicopters (and military units do not need to abide by FAA regulations when it comes to noise limits) so the noise will be even higher in those cases. Hansen reported there is currently litigation with regard to the airport property. The areas of contention are access rights and ownership of certain portions of the property. Even though the FBO (Fixed Based Operator) has closed, the airport is still being used. There was a landing and take off yesterday (April 16.) so he believes there's been some miscommunication in that regard. While they are not opposed to development they employee 30 people and have a $6-8 million dollar operation. They'd like to be assured at some level that they can continue to "do their thing" and any development will be compatible with their operations. Member Lingle asked who pilots the aircraft —is it the owner or their staff. Hansen responded both. Lingle asked how the pilots know the flight path. Hansen responded that there are arrows that mark in and out depending on the wind. Fort Collins is unique in that it is a mile high and it has high temperatures ... both of which will decrease aircraft performance. Those variables, in a maintenance test environment, makes for a performance limitations that need to be taken into account —it requires extra space and extra power to make safe takeoffs and landings. There are two paths that are normally used. One runs parallel with Airway Avenue. The other path is at a 20-30 degree angle and runs north over the proposed project. As community members, they try to do their best to avoid flights over populated areas (including the trailer park to the north, low-income project on Vine, and the Buckingham/Andersonville area.) Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 3 intention to formalize agreements identifying that helicopters will be near by..."it will be noisy ... don't buy if this is an issue for you." Jones referred to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular number 150/5390-2A which provided an isometric view of what's required for an unobstructed flight path for landing. He says they plan to double the 50 feet recommended in the Circular (a free zone without buildings or obstacles.) He presented a graphic that showed graduated building heights (25 to 75 feet) depending on their proximity to the flight path. As they move forward with more detailed planning as a part of the Project Development Plan, they intend to have parking in the rear of buildings and avoid trees or obstacles to preserve the wider flight path. Member Lingle referred to the isometric canyon graphic. It is his understanding that at the mouth of the canyon it is 50 feet wide at the bottom and slopes up 2:1 for 500 feet and then goes straight up. Is that correct? Jones responded yes —that is his understanding from the FAA circular (which he understands are the guidelines for helicopter landings.) Member Lingle said, given their illustration of the graduated building construction, he calculates it would be 250 feet to the center of the boulevard. What happens on the other side where adjacent property owners have already developed —wouldn't they also need a graduated path for an unobstructed flight path? Jones replied for the most part the adjacent development is only one story buildings and he's not certain if how close it is to their property line. Lingle asked if there were encroachments, wouldn't the FAA require the proposal to move further north? Jones responded that the property was declassified as an airport after the owner gave the adjacent businesses a 60 day option to make an investment in preserving its use as such. No one took the option and now they are simply trying to develop "this big piece of land. In the past, when its use was as an airport, it was convenient for the heliports to operate in the vicinity. The applicant would be willing to measure the proximity of the closest one story neighboring building and move the plan for the flight path 10-15 feet. Member Lingle asked if staff had evaluated this proposal with the CDP or because it has no vested right will it be deferred to the Project Development Plan (PDP.) Staff member Shepard responded that the aviation easement language was being accepted as a good faith effort and the 50 foot flight easement would be recorded at the time of the PDP. It's his understanding they will stay with the graduated building heights and that it is not CDP oriented. Shepard said the essence of the question, is, " are they qualified to evaluate the FAA issues?" They are not. Member Lingle asked if the FAA would be a part of the development review process at the PDP level Shepard responded very possibly. Member Wetzler asked from at which point could ascents or descents take place. Jones responded the helicopters for the current heliports would taxi to the closest spot that had the clearance they need based on prevailing winds —one from the north and the other from the south. Wetzler asked if that meant the flight path was bi-directional. Jones responded the helicopter operators in the audience tonight could probably answer that question better but his impression is the path is set based on the conditions at the time. The runway had previously been set based on historic data on prevailing winds and its parallel to that runway so logic would say this is an alignment the operators could live with. Member Wetzler also noted the adjacent properties' air space would be restricted in a fashion they are not currently experiencing with the plans for a flight path/development in the Airpark. Planning & Zoning Board April 17, 2008 Page 2 Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported Airpark Village Overall Development Plan (ODP) was a request for an Overall Development Plan for the former Downtown Airpark in anticipation of redevelopment of the terminal building, runways and taxiways. The ODP contains 151 acres and identifies a mix of land uses including employment, light industrial, commercial, offices and residential. The Downtown Airpark was a privately -owned, but publicly -used, airport operated under the jurisdiction of the General Aviation Administration. It was in operation between 1966 and 2006. Upon the cessation of the airport operation, the land was sold to the present applicant. The site was included in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, adopted in 2002. In April of 2006, the Downtown Airpark was combined with the Parsons and Kincaid parcels to form the subject property and annexed into the City. There have been no other land use approvals on the subject property. Staff recommends approval Troy Jones, representing the applicant, reported he would provide a brief project description. The site is zoned E, Employment and L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The northernmost portion will be for residential and mixed land use, the central portions (approximately 78 acres) will be a business park area, and the southernmost will be a trade -show area. The Airpark Village ODP (aka Airpark) proposes a main spine boulevard going through the project designed with buildings fronting and opening directly onto the street sidewalk. The sidewalk is proposed to mimic the character of the sidewalks in Downtown Fort Collins, including shade trees, landscaped medians, street furniture, and on -street parking. Parking lots intended to serve these street- fronting buildings are intended to be located behind the buildings. Upon initial annexation, the applicant agreed to a zoning restriction for the residential component of the project to have mixed -use residential in the employment zone portion of the project. Residential is designed to be on upper floors of mixed -use buildings, which are to be oriented toward the new boulevard. Jones referred to pages 4 and 5 of their application where the ODP transportation framework was identified. It's their intention to meet all requirements related to the Master Street Plan, including street pattern and connectivity standards intended to ensure that the street system is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency, and convenience for cars, bikes, pedestrian and transit. Jones acknowledged there are issues related to zoning, noise and safety relative to helicopter heliports currently operational adjacent to the project. Those businesses are zoned Industrial and are in the County. Heliports are a permitted use in the Land Use Code in the Employment zone. At some future date they'd be interested in constructing a heliport on the roof of one of their future buildings. Like the Poudre Valley Hospital heliport (which operates within 245 feet of a residential neighborhood,) helicopters/heliports are viable (i.e. graphic of multi -story Los Angeles heliports shown) so long as their flight path is free of obstruction. Like trains, helicopters are noisy. From his research, Jones' learned that helicopters average 105 dB and train horns average 125 dB. There are other areas of the City with mixed -use residential properties such as Penny Flats (Mason Corridor) impacted by noise. In their case, it's train noise. The project's mixed -use residential properties will be affected by the helicopter noise. It's the owner's Council Liaison: Dicgos Brown Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt William Stockover Chairperson Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, and Wetzler Excused Absence: Campana, Smith, Stockover Phone: (W) 491-2579 Phone: (W) 226-4328 Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Sommer, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Of special note was a revised Findings of Fact in the Staff Report for item 4, Shields Vine Enclave Annexation and Zoning. Citizen participation: None Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. There were no requests to move consent items to the discussion agenda. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the March 20, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. One Library Park Project Development Plan, # 34-07 3. Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation and Zoning, # 4-08 4. Shields Vine Enclave Annexation and Zoning, #5-08 Discussion Items: 5. Airpark Village Overall Development Plan, # 16-05A Member Lingle moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including Minutes from the January 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing as amended, One Library Park Project Development Plan, # 34-07, and Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation and Zoning, # 4-08. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4:0. Project: Airpark Village Overall Development Plan, # 16-05A Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for the former Downtown Airpark in anticipation of redevelopment of the terminal building, runways and taxiways. The O.D.P. contains 151 acres and identifies a mix of land uses including employment, light industrial, commercial, offices and residential. The parcel includes two zone districts — Employment and Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.