Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN ANNEXATION & ZONING - 42-03 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 43 The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. These minutes were approved at the May 20, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 42 by Sunset. He believes the PDP will address the residents concerns. The residents also have a golden opportunity to go to Council if they don't agree with this Board. Member Schmidt also agreed with Members Craig and Lingle. She sees the larger parcels of LMN and when you have a larger parcel of LMN, you have more flexibility where you can buffer and mitigate impacts. When you are just talking about a little two -acre piece you are more limited and it makes the impacts harder. She thought the RL would be more appropriate for this particular piece. Director Gloss wanted to clarify some statements made earlier regarding the density on this property. The LMN zoning district has a minimum density of 5 units per acre and a maximum density of 8 units per acre. Potentially, if it is an affordable housing project, it could be up to 12 units per acre. The Green Acre subdivision to the south is 5 units per acre. So to make it comparable, the developer would have to choose to do the lower end of the density range in order for the density to match the character to the south. Member Carpenter asked what the density would be for RL. Director Gloss replied that it would be slightly less than the parcels to the south and more comparable to the parcels that are immediately to the west. Planner Olt added that in the LMN zoning district there is a qualification, there is an exception to the minimum density in that this property is in the city's defined infill area. In that infill area, and a property is less than 20 acres in size, there is no minimum density requirement, so they are not required, if they do not want to, to meet that minimum 5 units per acre. They could do 1 single family residence if they wanted to. They still have a maximum density of 8 units per acre gross area unless it is affordable housing which could be up to 12. This property could develop anywhere from 1 to 20 units. The 20 dwelling units would be if it was an affordable housing project. The motion failed 4-2 with Members Carpenter, Lingle, Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council on the Adrian Zoning of RL, including the neighborhood sign district. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 41 Planner Olt replied that Stormwater Adequate Public Facilities are taken into consideration and those do have to be met before any final plan for any development proposal could be approved. Vice Chair Meyer reminded the citizens in the audience that they were not the final authority in this and that the Planning and Zoning Board was only making a recommendation to City Council. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council for the Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 that the property be annexed into the city of Fort Collins based on the findings on page 3 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Chairperson Torgerson not voting due to a conflict of interest. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council for Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Zoning District as well as the property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she would not be supporting the LMN. After what she has heard tonight and in looking at the area, she feels that she could request RL instead. This area sounds like it has a lot of issues. Even developed at RL, it is going to impact the neighbors, but she thought they would be willing to work at that. When talking about 16 units, she felt that there was a very negative impact in that and she felt that when we did put in the underlying RL zones, we did it with the thought of existing neighborhoods. She was getting the feeling tonight that County people are going to think city people are pretty awful. We involuntarily annex, we force high density down their throats, and we really have not done very many positive things for County residents. She did not think the city is going to suffer in any way shape or form if this was zoned RL. Member Lingle agreed with Member Craig. In looking at the findings, he did not agree with number 4 that it is appropriate for the site based on adjacent zoning. He felt that RL would be more appropriate. Member Gavaldon would be supporting the motion. In looking at the map, there is LMN on the fringe, on the east and south quadrants. There is also LMN over Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 40 Member Schmidt asked about a conceptual design for this property. Mr. Jones replied that there is a drawing that is anticipated to be submitted as a development plan, but we would have to wait until it is annexed before the staff has jurisdiction to review that plan. Member Schmidt asked how many units were on the plan. Mr. Jones replied 16. Member Gavaldon thought the Board was deviating from the process and asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to review for the Board the criteria under which they have to make their decision. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the criteria for annexation and zoning for the Board. Member Lingle asked what the density was of the surrounding existing developments are. Planner Olt replied that looking at it from the more rural properties to the east, west and south, there are two parcels to the west just across Impala Drive that are both 1/3 acre in size. To the south there is a property that is about an acre and a half in size. To the east there are two parcels that are still a meets and boundaries description, lands that are not subdivided, one being 1/3 acre, the other 1 3/4 acre in size. As you get to the platted subdivisions in Larimer County to the southeast and west, you are looking at lot sizes to the south of 10,000 to 13,000 s.f., to the west 6,500 to 7,500 s.f., and the subdivision to the east 10,000 to 12,000 s.f. in size. To put that in context, if this were zoned LMN, you could have a range of 8 to 13 dwelling units, as standard residential development. Depending on the amount of road network that would have to be included on the site, that would provide for lots anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 s.f. in size. By comparison, a development in the LMN district could be commensurate with the platted subdivision lands to the west, south and east, excluding the larger parcels that are directly adjacent to this property. Those densities would equate to probably three to five dwelling units per acre in those existing subdivisions in Larimer County. Member Schmidt asked if a Project Development Plan came in on this property what would they be required to mitigate as far as the drainage concerns go. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 39 Mr. Jones replied that FA zoning is 2 units per acre. Member Craig stated that what she was hearing from the neighbors is that their biggest concern is density and with the total deficiency in infrastructure there, why are we looking at LMN. This property is totally deficient in infrastructure and we are bringing in this high density city project that can't possibly address all of these concerns on less than two acres. Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Utility responded to the neighbors concerns and stated that as the neighbors have stated, the area is deficient in storm drainage facilities. It was developed in the County but the city does have a long-term solution to bring in a major channel and put in a regional detention on the Forney property. That is the long term solution, but how that will address this particular area and how it will get to the channel through the deficient street, there would have to be a storm sewer put in and retrofit improvements. Currently the infrastructure is not there. Since we don't have a PDP to look at, he cannot address the stormwater issue on this particular property. He is looking at it as a whole basin perspective, the West Vine Basin. That is what they put Master Plans together for. Member Schmidt asked about the future and was he talking 5 years or 20 years. Mr. Hamdan replied it was hard because some of it is driven by development. Sometimes we are moved by development and resources are shifted to accommodate that. If there is enough development pressure it could be in 5 years. His sense is that we would do something of a more temporary nature, a short-term fix that will allow these developments to go through before we do the major improvements. There also maybe some interim improvements that would provide some relief, but that is speculation. Member Schmidt asked if this was zoned RL, what would be the maximum density. Mr. Jones replied that the RL does not specify density in units per acre. It is minimum lot size 6,000 s.f. You can have larger lots than 6,000 s.f. but to make it as dense as possible it is a minimum of 6,000 s.f. lots. In this case it would be 5 units per acre. LMN could go up to 8 units per acre. Planner Olt added that it would be a net density of 5 units per acre and 8 gross units per acre. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 38 occur with asphalt and concrete he will have an erosion issue because he has an undeveloped field on his north side that is about a foot higher than his property. If stormwater does flow through there it will be more that he is able to handle and he will have an erosion issue. Sharon Stockton, 613 North Impala was concerned with the zoning designation and pushing the LMN for future development. Like Ms. Knox stated, all the property is developed other than a couple of properties. The type of development that they have seen proposed there will be no other development unless other houses are torn out. It is an established neighborhood and there is no more room for anything like what is being proposed and it does not make a lot of sense for LMN. Fred Winkler, 624 Irish Drive stated that the reason he has lived a century there is because he enjoys the rural atmosphere there and he opposes this development because it will be detrimental to the character of their community. Ann Rockisnick, 2318 Plains Court stated that she does not want water going through her back yard because she has animals and she does not want to provide a swimming pool for them. Public Input Closed Mr. Jones rebutted that most of the comments heard tonight are very valid comments, however what we are talking about tonight is just a change in jurisdiction from the County to the city and the second part is what to zone the property. The concerns raised tonight are all development review related concerns that once a Project Development Plan is applied for, each and every one of those concerns would have to be addressed before it could gain development approval. Just changing the jurisdiction to the city of Fort Collins gives the city and the development review staff the chance to apply the standards. When it is under the County's jurisdiction, the city does not have the ability to do anything with reviewing the property. Also Ms. Knox had a question on something he had presented earlier. He clarified that the two examples were in the city in 1997 when the new Structure Plan was adopted, whereas this portion was in the County and is still in the County, therefore the city had no jurisdiction to designate it one or the other zone, it has to wait until it is annexed. Member Craig asked if this property were to be developed in the County today, what would be the density. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 37 In summary, this incompatible annexation proposal looks great on the map and fits the colors. If you only would go out there and look at this and see how preposterous this is, you would understand. It is insensitive to and lacks respect for the long standing residents of this Green Acres subdivision and the surrounding neighborhoods. It presents issues of public safety, public health and societal concerns, all of which are undesirable and unnecessary. He again pleaded with the Board to halt this annexation at this time. After all 115 neighborhood citizens have signed a petition (Exhibit A) against this imposition and potential cause for trouble for an otherwise terrific residential neighborhood. Sandra Knox, 2309 West Vine Drive questioned Mr. Jones's statement of how all developed properties were put in the RL zoning district in 1997. They were developed then and she asked why they were put into the LMN zoning district. Ms. Knox stated that she was opposed to the Adrian Annexation for two reasons. First is the stormwater issue and her big issue with that is whether her field will be flooded. Currently the water flow is straight down into her property. She has been flooded numerous times from that field. She wants to find out where the water is going to go. She was concerned that if there is a retention pond about West Nile Virus because they have horses and they don't need more mosquitoes. Another concern that Ms. Knox has is that she has a well on her property next to this annexation. She is concerned about the groundwater and the water table. Her property values will go to zero if she cannot use her well. She has an acre and a half that she has to water. She just read in the paper that someone with an acre and a half, with city water, cost them $1,000 a month. She is greatly concerned about her well and that there should be a complete study done to cover both the stormwater issues and the water issues before deciding annexation. She stated that the Land Use Code states, "that the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage." It says in the Land Use Code that adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage shall be provided. Paul Waxeman, 416 North Impala stated that he was concerned with the condition of the road. He stated that the County or the city does not help fix the road and there are holes already in the road and with the exit traffic the holes will only get worse. He also concurred with previous speakers concerns. John Justice, 2318 Plains Court stated that he also was concerned with the drainage flowing onto his property. He has a small culvert for stormwater for the development that is there right now. His concern is the additional water that will Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 36 be zoned RL or UE to keep it more in character with the City Code. The Land Use Code, Section 3.5.1 states that "any architectural design and construction carried out should maintain the architectural character and integrity of the neighborhood." They are requesting that a thorough traffic study be done immediately at this point, before this annexation goes through. It should include vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on both West Vine and North Impala Drives, traffic flow on Cherry Street between North Impala and Irish Drive and also on Irish Drive. There is also a stormwater issue in this area and they request that the stormwater drainage issues be resolved before any such annexation is carried out. The proposed annexation site is not presently developed, which means that the precipitation soaks into the ground until its saturation point. After which, it runs off to the south. The proposed units to go on this property, in which they have seen drawings, will cover most of the site with concrete, asphalt and shingles and will impose significant runoff. This runoff, whether detained or retained, or allowed to simply run away, proposes an imminent danger to the residential property directly due south. There is no curb and gutter there right now and if curb and gutter were to go in, you will pose an imminent flooding danger to six residents on Impala Drive because there is no slope to the street. There are already flooding issues in the West Vine Basin. There are no storm drains on Impala Drive. There street cannot handle anymore and as residents of North Impala Drive do not want to stand for this imposed threat and danger of flooding to their homes. Has the staff studied the stormwater issues regarding this annexation? There is no mention of this in the staff report. Another major issue they are looking at regarding the traffic study and their request for this is because there are many children that play in the streets over on Impala Drive around Cherry Street and at Irish Elementary. They think that this represents a clear and present danger to their children's safety, pedestrian safety and safety in the neighborhood. He is under the belief that North Impala Drive is a 30 foot wide street that has a 1,000 vehicle per day maximum usage on it. There are 39 homes on Impala Drive, which is a dead end street. There is one way out on Vine Drive and one way out on Cherry Street where it T's with Impala Drive. They are also impacted by the traffic at the school coming up Impala Drive. He is of the belief that they are already seeing this 1,000 vehicle per day limit and because of any proposed LMN zoning and the density that it would allow, there is two ways this traffic is going to go. One way is out onto Vine and the other is down Impala. He thinks that is just too much at this time to be handled. He is requesting that the Board halt this annexation until this can property be studied, so they do not put the health and welfare and the safety of their children and pedestrians at risk in their neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 35 the applicants are bringing before the board is consistent with the adopted city Structure Plan. Troy Jones, M Torgerson Architects spoke on behalf of the applicant. He wanted to respond to a couple of issues that were brought up at worksession. Mr. Jones displayed the site and stated that the subject property and the property to the south as well as the two properties across Impala Drive are not part of the subdivision that is to the south. He thought it was important to make that distinction clear because there are several properties that are more rural in this immediate vicinity, including this property than there are to the south on Impala Drive. He stated that the area with sidewalk is a subdivision and the area where there wasn't sidewalk, just swales off the side of the road is not included in the subdivision. Mr. Jones wanted to go back to 1997 and look at the issue of when property designated Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood on the Structure Plan was zoned originally back in 1997, one of the fundamental questions was do you zone it RL, Residential Low Density or do you zone it LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The difference between the two is primarily in density. The RL zone allows the smallest size lot to be 6,000 s.f., whereas the LMN can go up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Jones wanted to point out a couple of examples to address the question raised at worksession; which was would it not be more appropriate to zone this Adrian Annexation RL versus LMN. He argued that it would make more sense to zone it LMN. Mr. Jones gave a couple of examples of other areas of the city with similar situations, He stated that it was important to see that in 1997 when this zoning was initiated all of the areas that were zoned LMN were vacant at that point and all of the areas that were zoned RL, already had been developed. The assumption at that point was that if it has development potential and it is designated Low Density Residential on the Structure Plan, go ahead and make it LMN and if it is already developed in the time frame of the Structure Plan and does not have redevelopment potential, you give it RL. Mr. Jones reiterated that the Adrian Annexation site being a piece of property that is a meets and bounds rural type of character that is not part of a subdivision would be appropriate to be LMN. Public Input Dr. Steven Schafer, 601 North Impala Drive read a statement of a petition (Exhibit A) into the record. They request that this annexation be halted immediately and stated numerous reasons. They believe that this could perhaps Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 34 Chairp0 an-Tomerson stated that he would not support t ion and stated agreement with Md b arpenter. He added that a are changed conditions on the site and staff is stating MN doe a sense, though they are concerned about the land balance P ivleedg criteria for approving or denying this do not include anythin ut AB developing o erty. The motio approved 4-3 with Members Carpenter, Meyer, a Tor on voting in the negative. Project: Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 Project Description: Request to annex and zone 2.18 acres located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of Laporte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single family residence (with house and barn) and is in the FA Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairperson Torgerson excused himself because of a conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Meyer. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation stating that staff was recommending approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. He stated that the property is eligible for annexation by virtue of the Irish Second Annexation along West Vine Drive, which was a flag pole annexation that was done several years ago to enable the city to annex Irish Elementary. Planner Olt displayed the zoning map and pointed out the properties in yellow around the Adrian property that are in the city and are in the LMN zoning district and also what was still in Larimer County. Planner Olt displayed the Structure Plan map that was adopted by the city in 1997 and stated that the property to be discussed tonight is designated as Low Density, Mixed Use Residential. The requested zoning that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of consent items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Craig commented on Item 6, Harmony Farms Second Annexation and Zoning. She would like to send a message to Council in regards to their aggressive pursuant of these involuntary annexations of enclaves. She does not feel that the negative consequences that people that are being forced into these annexations is being looked at. She wanted to make sure that the minutes reflect that she is concerned and would like Council to look at the impacts when they do look at enclave annexations, instead of just putting them on the consent agenda and not realizing that there are negative, both financially and otherwise, consequences to these involuntary annexations. Member Schmidt concurred with Member Craig. She thought it would be beneficial that the people affected by the enclave be made well aware at the time of all the fees and the financial impacts that the future annexation will have. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club Expansion — Major Amendment Project Des tion: Request to expand thee ' ing 99,810 square foot Sam's,Qpdbmembership retail store by ing 30,753 s.f. along the west_.si,66 and a portion of the north side a building. In addition, to commodate the expansion, the arking lot on the west side of the bui ' will be re -configured including shifting north -south access drive and the curb cut Oak Ridge Drive further west. Significant itectural changes are proposed for the no and west elevations. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Lingle, Craig, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Barkeen, Shepard, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 17, 2002, June 5, August 21, October 16, and November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-04 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-05 — Easement Dedication. 4. Resolution PZ04-06 — Easement Dedication. 5. #54-87AH Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club Expansion — Major Amendment. 6. #1-04 Harmony Farm — Second Annexation & Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #20-03 Prospect/1-25 — Overall Development Plan. 8. #36-961 Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Major Amendment. 9. #36-96J Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Project Development Plan. 10. Fall 2003 Land Use Code — Remanded Item from City Council. 11.#43-02 Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning. 12.#42-03 Adrian — Annexation and Zoning. Marion Jeffrey, 4620 Player Drive Pulled Item 5, Sam's Club Expansion for discussion.