HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY, 2ND FILING - FDP ..... ONE-YEAR EXTENSION ..... 1/19/2012 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 39-94E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 18
Meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Andy Smith, Chair
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 17
building to the approved plan and he will not be able to diminish any of the qualitative aspects of the
plan. He'll be held to the standard that the plan is approved.
Board Discussion
Member Stockover said he always asks if it's detrimental to the public good and he doesn't believe this
is. He thinks we'll get a development here at some point in time. He said he really shies away from using
financial as a hardship. With that said, he asked what would be gained if we were to deny this extension
and ask a developer to start over. He doesn't see there is anything to be gained. They are bringing a
good plan forward. He will support it.
Member Schmidt said the plan as designed is a good plan. With the phasing the way it is now, there's a
chance the townhomes are not going to happen for some years to come. If you look at the Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan, that has a lot more LMN zoning and it will probably contain some multi -family
housing. Whether they be townhomes, duplexes, or apartments they will partly buffer the industrial land
near Anheuser Busch. Multifamily is always a good buffer before you get to areas with single family. In
the future you will see more multi -family in that whole northeast area.
Schmidt said she lives in that area and we're all working towards it becoming a quality neighborhood.
She said the Board toured these subdivisions when evaluating various aspects of Plan Fort Collins.
She'd recommend not stereotyping people who rent or live in townhomes. The economy has certainly
changed, some people are finding the need for different housing types, but they're still very vested in
their neighborhoods. It's important not to presume things are going to be as they have been in the past.
She will support the extension. She agrees with what Member Stockover said. It's best to have it on the
books and move forward with it so somebody can come in and purchase it. They at least have a plan
with which to get started. They can move ahead to get development in the area. Hopefully that will help
the neighborhood with current issues.
Member Kirkpatrick said she will support the extension. She hopes that First American State Bank and
Mr. Hoaglund do their due diligence in being good neighbors. She doesn't think it's appropriate for the
Board to require another neighborhood meeting but certainly that's something she would encourage
them to do.
Member Campana said he agrees. He thinks we can make it a condition but he doesn't know if there
would be any value to that because the plan has already been approved. He said something that could
happen is that a buyer would buy the next filing, have options on the other phases and have to come
forward before staff or this body. If they try to skate by not meeting standards, some damage would be
done but we'd have some opportunities in subsequent phases.
Member Campana made a motion to approve the Lind Property Second Filing Final Plan, One -
Year Extension, # 39-94E based upon a finding that the plan complies with all general
development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in
Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. Also, it should be approved due to other
extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property and exceptional practical
difficulties or undue hardships on the applicant. And granting the extension would not be
detrimental to the public good. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 5:0.
Other Business:
None
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 16
Member Schmidt said one of the neighbors had a question... will the whole 2nd Filing have its own
homeowners association. How will those fees affect the parks? Hoaglund said the original intent's
(Centex) was they would be a part of the original HOA. How that is going to be handled going forward he
is not sure. It depends on the developer that comes forward.
Member Campana said its complicated situation. Once the bank takes over a property, they don't take
the declarant rights because they don't want the liability. It's usually dependent upon how they the
"CC&Rs" are written for that subdivision which is not in the city or the Board's purview. All are written
differently. Most of the national builders have quite a bit of protection so in a situation such as this; it
would require an amendment of the "CC&Rs" which requires all the lien holders and property owners to
participate. It's a very complicated question to answer.
Member Campana said as we look at developments around here, what was approved by the time this
was taking place. The 1s' Filing was clearly approved and taking place when the 2nd Filing was being
designed. Hoaglund said Maple Hill was simultaneous with the 1s' Filing. Hoaglund said they worked
with them on street alignments with the 151 Filing. Hoaglund does remember a neighborhood meeting on
the 1 s' Filing because he remembers discussion on County Road 11 (now Turnberry Road). Those
issues were worked out.
Member Campana said some of the concerns the Board heard on the previous item was density. He just
did some quick math and the density on the 1 sl Filing was about 4 dwelling units per acre. On the 2nd
Filing, its 31h dwelling units per acre. Actually the density is substantially less on the 2nd Filing.
Hoaglund said that's correct —they knew they'd have to make up some density with future filings.
Campana said it's also a point for the neighbors to consider.
Public Input
Scott Jackson of 2351 Flagstaff said as a neighborhood they know it's going to be developed. There
really aren't any other lots in Fort Collins. These are primed, it's ready. It's such a unique property in
that the rules changed with Plan Fort Collins coming on line after it was approved and Centex pulling up
stakes. He does feel the owners have a hardship. They don't want an empty field next to them; they do
want a smartly developed community. As a neighborhood they want to be able to weigh in so their
property values and the character of their community are protected. They also understand how the city
has to remain on line to meet the goals of Plan Fort Collins. He's all for an extension if that's what's
really going to be able to market this property quickly. He said he'd recommend approval with caveats
that before any development comes on line, the neighbors have a chance to weigh in and their concerns
heard.
End of Public Input
Hoagland said he understands where the neighbors are coming from. We all want a quality community.
He said the 30 townhomes are separated by some distance. They are not right up against them with a
currently landscaped detention pond. If he's involved with future filings, he'll certainly carry forward with
the outreach process. He knows staff will also push for that.
Korn agrees with public comment with regard to quality. Looking forward to a developer, those are the
things he will pass along to them. Certainly the quality of the development and making sure we're in
compliance is also their concern.
Shepard said First American State Bank has been very clear they are not going to be the developer. He
appreciates that candidness because they don't often get that. The developer will be obligated to
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 15
Shepard said the Code does require to approve you must find the above. If you do not find there other
extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, it may be difficult to approve the
extension.
Member Schmidt said a requirement is the applicant has been diligent in constructing the required
engineering. The idea is basically in most cases we want to see a start. She asked what all would be
involved and how long might that take to do. Deputy City Attorney said if you think the diligence question
is at issue, it may be the applicant wants you to think in that regard. The Code is quoted on page 3 of
the staff report. Basically the plan complies with the Code AND the applicant has been diligent in
constructing the engineering improvements OR due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations
unique to the property AND granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good.
Eckman said you get to choose between whether they have been diligent or whether there's a hardship.
His impression is the applicant is arguing the hardship point not diligence.
Member Schmidt said even if the unfortunate event of the owner's passing had not occurred, would
something have happened on the due diligence road construction, etc. What had happened at that point
in time that would make the Board believe they had been diligent? Hoaglund said in the summer of 2010
the owners looked at alternative phasing for the property. Part of that would have been the construction
of Richard's Lake Road. The Richard's Lake Road would have been tied to both the Centex property
and the Maple Hill property. Basically, whoever got there first built the road —it was a joint project.
Richard's Lake Road would have been built in two sections with one in place. As far as actual physical
construction, that's all that's taken place. Hoaglund said there is an existing detention pond that was
constructed with the 1 st Filing that will also be used by the 211 Filing.
Hoaglund said in the summer of 2012 the partners asked him to prepare a statement of probable costs
and to look at alternate phasing —breaking it down to smaller "chunks" (30-40 lots at a time). Hoaglund
said frankly from 2008 to now it's been almost impossible to find development projects. That's what
really held this thing up. They started to see a shift in the marketability of lots in 2010. There was a
letter of intent by Centex Homes to purchase it from the Turnberry Road Partners. That fell apart. In a
February/March 2011 timeframe they asked him to put the project out to bid and start negotiations with
various contractors. Their intent was to get it built. They knew their time was expiring and they wanted
to get it started. In mid -summer the remaining partners started the conversation with First American State
Bank to take the property back.
Member Schmidt asked Hoaglund if he worked with phasing different than Centex Homes. Hoaglund
said Centex had two construction phases and they're looking at four phase.
Member Schmidt said if we did give a one year extension, at the end of that year; someone starts
working on the first phase, they would just need to start working on roads for that particular phase.
Hoaglund said this phasing plan has not been approved by the city. It would require a Minor Amendment
to the approved plan. The partners did not go ahead with that.
Member Schmidt asked if approved; are they approving the old phasing plan. Shepard said phasing is
not a part of the Board's extension deliberation. The Board has a request to extend the 2nd Filing. It's an
approved plan with an approved layout, approved density, and an approved housing mix.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if the 1 $t Filing was approved in 2003 and the 2nd Filing was approved
January, 2007; how much of those existing neighborhoods were built when they went through the
neighborhood outreach process. Shepard said he's not sure as he wasn't the planner on Lind 1 st and he
inherited Lind 2"d. He thinks those permitted uses were administrative and did not require a
neighborhood meeting. Shepard said there may have been a neighborhood meeting for the ODP.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 14
vesting, the Final Plan was valid to January 17, 2010. Two successive, one-year,
administrative extensions were granted extending the vesting to January 17, 2012.
The project is not eligible for any additional administrative extensions and any
further extension is under the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Board. The
project is located at the northeast corner of Turnberry Road and Richards Lake
Road and consists of 153 dwelling units on 44.87 acres. The parcel is zoned L-M-
N, Low Density Planned Residential.
Recommendation: Should the Board find that there is an extraordinary and exceptional situation
regarding the lack of engineering improvements, and no detriment to the public
good, Staff recommends approval of the Lind Property, Second Filing, Final Plan,
One -Year Extension, #39-94E.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said with the approval of the Amended ODP, the application is now eligible
for consideration of a one year extension by the Planning & Zoning Board. He said should the Board
find that there is an extraordinary and exceptional situation regarding the lack of engineering
improvements, and no detriment to the public good, Staff recommends approval of the Lind Property,
Second Filing, Final Plan, One -Year Extension, #39-94E.
Applicant's Presentation
Terence Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, said at this point in time, he'd like to turn the presentation over to
David Korn of First American State Bank. He's going to speak more to their acquisition of the property
and what's happened this year. Hoaglund said he has background information should there be any
questions.
David Korn said he'll keep it brief in that he believes the Board is familiar some with how they came to
this hearing today. The borrower (Turnberry Road Partners) in late 2010 had become very serious about
their intent to act to get the development going. Things were rolling along very well until the unexpected
death of the principal partner in March 2011. The remaining partner had turned over the operation to
Hoaglund to continuing looking at getting work started by the 2°d half of 2011. Korn said that obviously
when one of the major and active partners passes away, the financial difficulty really prevented them
from acting on the work that Hoaglund had laid in place at that point in time. He said the bank was very
fortunate to have a willing partner and a family estate that worked with them to gain control of the
property.
The bank was not aware of the shortened time at the time they had opportunity to take control. In
October when they arranged for a "deed in lieu" is when they first found out about the expiration of the
entitlement. The bank appreciates the Board's patience with this particular property. Certainly this is a
property prime and ripe for development. What they need to have in place is an extension so they're
able to act to get a qualified developer in place that can adequately address the concerns about the
development.
Shepard said he would direct the Board's direction to the essence of the issue on page 6, subsection 6
of the staff report. This is what the applicant is referring to with regard to the chronology he just laid out.
"...due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all
engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue
hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public
good. "
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 13
seems like a lot of extra effort to —a burden both the neighbors and the current owner. He's in support
of granting the extension.
Member Schmidt said when we talked about changing LMN—varying density and different housing
types, didn't we create something that was a little new and different just by varying the lot sizes.
Shepard said that's correct; we did create the alley load single family detached —that did not exist before
as a housing type. Shepard said we got a little more specific on the small lot single family detached —
that could be achieved one of two ways, either by having a 4,000 square foot lot or having a lot frontage
of 40 feet or less. That allowed a little more flexibility.
Member Schmidt asked about the LMN density change. Shepard said before there was a required
minimum of 5 units and a maximum of 8 units per acre. It was widen at both ends of the spectrum. Now
the required minimum has been reduced to 4 units per acre and the allowable maximum has been
increased to 9 units per acre. Schmidt said in response to Member Campana's comment, she said some
things have changed enough that it's possible we could come up with a better plan or a plan that better
meets the needs of the neighborhood.
Member Campana said his point is the OPD would still meet the new code. The code changes apply to
the ODP where they could meet those requirements with the parcels that are still unplatted. And
considering it's been approved since 2007; in fairness to the owner it has been approved.
Member Schmidt said we're sort of jumping the gun as far as discussing this. She still has some
concerns —there haven't been any infrastructure improvements done on this 2nd Filing. None of the
roads have been put in. Shepard said this would better be discussed with the next item.
Member Schmidt recommends the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Lind Property Amended
Overall Development Plan, Referral of a Minor Amendment, #MA120001. Member Campana
seconded the motion.
Member Stockover said every time he analyses this it seems like a very good plan to him. He
understands the anxiety when property next to you is developing but based on what's required and
what's allowable, we could do a lot worse than this. He doesn't see any real upside to starting from
scratch. We've spent a lot of time and effort to make sure this is aligned with the intent of the Code. The
choices that have been made are probably at the higher end of what choices could be made. He'll be
supporting this motion.
Member Schmidt said it's appropriate the ODP is brought up to Code.
Member Kirkpatrick said she agrees. We need to more forward to be able to discuss the concerns that
have been brought up.
Chair Smith agreed. He said reading through the Findings of Fact and Conclusion, he would agree with
staff's analysis.
The motion was approved 5:0.
Project: Lind Property Second Filing Final Plan, One Year Extension, #39-94E
Project Description: This is a request for a one-year extension, to January 12, 2013, of the approved
Lind Property Second Filing, Final Plan. The P.D.P was approved by the Hearing
Officer and the Final Plan was recorded on January 17, 2007. With three years of
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 2
meaningful. He thinks we should be spending more time to make sure the "rules of law" are being
applied before going off on some tangent.
He said from the many presentations he's seen related to PDOD; there's never been mention of the root
meaning. Rules, laws, and processes are meant to protect those that live here. They would be placed
front and center and they're not.
Member Schmidt said she thinks that is one of the reasons PDOD has been postponed. The delay is to
have an opportunity for citizens to provide feedback and participate in discussions about the various
elements of PDOD. She would encourage him if he has feedback to forward his concerns to staff and
the Planning & Zoning Board. They can take a look at those suggestions as they consider the topic
again at their work session on the 101" of February and again at the hearing on the 16'" of February.
Chair Smith asked if there were any audience or Board members who wanted to pull items from the
Consent Agenda. There was no one.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the December 8, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
2. Land Use Code Amendment Deleting Medical Marijuana Businesses from the list of Permitted
Uses in Various Zones.
5. Planned Development Overlay District —to be continued to the February 16 Hearing.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda which consists of the minutes
from the December 8, 2011 Planning & Board Hearing, the Land Use Code Amendment Deleting
Medical Marijuana Businesses from the list of Permitted Uses in Various Zones, and the Planned
Development Overlay District (to be continued to the February 16 Hearing). Member Campana
seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Liberty Common 7-12 School Expansion —Site Plan Advisory Review, # SPA 110003
3. Lind Property Second Filing Amended Overall Development Plan # MA120001
4. One Year Extension of Lind Property, Second Filing, # 39-94E
Project: Liberty Common 7-12 School Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review, #
SPA110003
Project Description: This is a request to expand the existing Liberty Common 7 —12 charter school at
2745 Minnesota Drive with a two-story addition consisting primarily of new
classrooms. The expansion also includes a new engineering lab and gymnasium.
The expansion would take place over two or more phases. The square footage of
the proposed building expansion is 28,838 square feet. The existing building is
26,333 square feet. With the proposed expansion, the total building size would be
55,171 square feet. Facility expansion includes a new parking lot, a modified
stormwater detention pond and an athletic field. The existing bicycle/pedestrian
path would be re -aligned. The site is 3.9 acres, zoned M-M-N, Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and bordered by Minnesota Drive, Custer Drive,
Kansas Drive and Limon Drive.
n rk�h In
Y wr
x ww„ of
�t'�",a.. jx�rvn,.ca l�+�ryil�
�
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Ted Shepard
Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Excused Absences Carpenter and Hatfield
Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review
Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the agenda
Election of Officers
Chair Stockover noted that election of officers (Chair & Vice -Chair) takes place every year with a term
limit of 2 years. He opened the floor for nominations.
Member Schmidt nominated Andy Smith for Chair. Member Campana seconded the
motion. There were no other nominations.
Nomination was approved 5:0
Chair Smith nominated Gino Campana for Vice -Chair. Member Schmidt seconded the
motion. There were no other nominations.
Nomination was approved 5:0.
Chair Smith thanked Butch Stockover for his service as Chair.
Citizen participation:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he was curious about whether this was the proper time to
address items on the Consent Agenda. He'd like to speak to the Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD). Chair Smith said the normal process would be to pull the item from Consent and have a staff
presentation. Sutherland said he's intent was just to make a few comments as it's noted in the agenda
that the item is to be continued to the February 16 Hearing. He wondered why new regulations were
coming forward when we're not observing "the old ones". He said "rule of law' does not seem to have the
meaning that it might have had in times past. He mentioned the Urban Renewal Authority's $5M loan
being completely outside State Statutes.
Sutherland mentioned the P&Z decisions (the Grove at Fort Collins ODP and PDP) before City Council
this past year. He said there's numerous examples of things "set in concrete" that hadn't been observed.
He used an example of the City Manager inviting new testimony during the appeal hearing. He said with
PDOD, we're rewriting rules and regulations yet the ones we currently have on the books are not that