Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK 392 - ANNEXATION & ZONING - 32-09 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 6 Chair Schmidt asked how the scenario plays out if 2-3 weeks is not enough time for a study that is very detailed. Leavitt said he'd continue with his comments. Director Dush said for the normal process, if they submitted an ECS without sufficient information; Leavitt would make a comment that he needs "x, y and z." The applicant would then provide the information to update the ECS. Dush said the purpose of the recommended condition was to identify the constraints early on in the development design process. Member Rollins said doesn't every discipline have to submit a report to the City, e.g., traffic impact study. You'd be under the same constraints to look at that study and evaluate it within the time period that's set forth. She asked do you not scope out what you need to see in an ECS prior to them beginning work on it. Leavitt said yes if they come in. Rollins said that would be the reason why she couldn't support the condition but she could support the annexation. She said that used to be an issue with traffic impact studies but now before you do anything you have to have a form that's completed and signed by the City Traffic Engineer that says he's scoped out the study. They use to get studies that were just guesses of what somebody wanted. She said perhaps a tool like that would be beneficial. That should be worked out in a process change and not this one project. Member Campana said yes, it's just like performing a survey of the site (elevations or geographic conditions) prior to doing your design. In the past, perhaps people have come forth with the ECS and PDP putting pressure on staff due to the money they had already spent. What Rollins is talking about makes more sense. Chair Schmidt said what she is hearing is that there is an issue to be resolved but she doesn't know if this condition works the best for the developer and the City in this case. The Board will review a policy change in work session. It could result in a Land Use Code change that would apply to everyone. Member Smith made a motion to recommend the City Council approval of the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning, # 32-09 and in support of his motion he adopts the findings of fact and conclusion on page 4 of the Staff Report: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On November 3, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested C - Commercial Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was passed 7:0. Chair Schmidt noted the project was approved without the condition so hopefully we'll be seeing changes to the Land Use Code related to ECS submittal requirements. Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 5 and reward for the developer. As staff said, the City's stance at conceptual review is these are the things you should do. Stockover said we need to stick to the plan as it exists today. We're trying to change the plan for one piece of property.and we're doing that in haste. As he thinks through what's proposed, even with a 30 day ECS pre -submittal; he just doesn't see how it helps the developer. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that's a point well taken. He said for the case being considered tonight, the condition should be revised to read, A Comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City at least 30 days for review prior to the submittal of any application for approval of a Project Development Plan." You could submit it prior to that, e.g. 60 days before. He said in consultation with Director Dush, there should also be an "outside" period. We wouldn't want one submitted 10 years before because as was mentioned conditions could change. He said we need to have an actual window such as not more than one year but at least 30 days. Member Stockover said it's his feeling that this applicant already knows the wetlands are an issue so he thinks, in his opinion, we should just drop it. He thinks we should review the policy change in work session. He doesn't think we need to act in haste tonight. Member Carpenter asked if there was something now that prevents the developer from bringing in an ECS prior to his PDP review. Director Dush said no. There have been cases that we'd done reviews on an informal basis. By staff suggesting this condition now it just provides that level of certainty for any individual that comes in. Should the property be sold, it puts them on notice that an ECS is required at least 30 days prior to the PDP submittal. Carpenter said she's feeling pretty much the way Stockover is. She does think it's something we need to discuss but we need to discuss it in a work session to figure out how we're going to go forward on a policy and let these people do what we've laid out for them as our current policy. Member Rollins said she also agrees with Stockover. She's concluded from work session discussion that the current policy may not be working so we need to work on that. The current property owner is aware of the situation. She thinks we should not require it for this one project. It should be changed at a policy level and not for this one project. Member Lingle said he'd disagree. He said we'd be changing it on this one project with the recommended condition. Current policy is they can submit any time. He thinks in fairness it should not be an open ended requirement. He doesn't believe the City will do this but if not outlined clearly the developer could be waiting 6 months. He thinks the 30 day requirement gives everyone a little protection including the developer who will get the assurance that it would not be unnecessarily delayed. Chair Schmidt asked if currently there is no prescribed timeline in which ECSs are reviewed. If there are a large number of projects, could it take 6 months to complete a review? Leavitt said right now the limiting factor is when a PDP is submitted and review comments are.due (2-3 weeks.) Most of the times he's aware when there are issues with a site. However, there is time that's its not submitted until the PDP. Member Campana said there's a time limit right now. If you submit your ECS with your PDP you have 2- 3 weeks to get comments back to the applicant. Olt said correct; if there are environmental issues related to the proposed development that needs to be stated with the first round of comments 3 weeks after submittal. Campana asked Lingle if that satisfies his concerns —we've put an end bracket on the time frame. Lingle said the condition is that it'd have to be submitted prior to the PDP. Carpenter said we don't have to agree to the condition. Campana said what some members are suggesting is that we remove the condition and deal with that policy issue in a work session setting. Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 4 He said the Board's raised a good point —when do you bring it in. Is the onus on the City once we bring it in to get it approved within a certain period of time? That should all be a part of the policy that needs to be addressed. Gilleland recognizes that normally a flag gets waved when you see a visual of a potential environmental concern. He'd like to caution is environmental impact is not just visual. He used an example of a development he was working with in Scottsbluff, NE in which a farmer had dumped diesel oil into the ground over many years. It was not visible but there was enough intuitive experience of the environmental team to determine a problem. His recommendation is the City considers a policy that puts everyone on an even keel. He said they are an environmentally conscious group and want to preserve the natural wetlands area and debate through the ECS what is not natural wetlands. Public Input: David Feuer is a property owner adjacent to the land in question. He said he had a couple of questions. If this annexation occurs, what studies will be done to determine the impact on the neighboring community? He also wanted to know about the wetlands. He understands that it's similar to a flood plain and there's a geographic area that's going to have a certain amount of water content that will vary by season and that'd most likely assess it at the high point. Chair Schmidt said once the annexation and zoning is established, the developer can bring in a plan that meets zoning requirements. At that point, there a number of standards considered when evaluating a development proposal. Additionally, the neighbors would have a chance to participate/comment at a neighborhood meeting level on the proposed development. Olt offered information on the development review process. He said at this point, we are simply looking at the annexation and zoning (phase 1.) He said we do not have any information to evaluate impact on his property at this juncture; that will occur with the Project Development Plan (PDP) is submitted. . Feuer said he's in favor of wise development of the land and he looks forward to well -planned growth. He just wants to make sure what's done is done in a way that is environmentally and socially friendly. Chair Schmidt suggested that if Mr. Feuer sees a development proposal sign, he does not hesitate to call to make sure his name is on the list to get updates/notice of hearings. She said we notice property owners within a certain distance but if you are outside that area you will not receive notice. Public Input Closed Board Citizen Response & Questions Chair Schmidt asked what plans are being made to establish a policy relative to ECS submittals. She'd also like to know when an ECS is triggered. Olt read Section 3.4.1(D)(1) stating an ECS must be a part of any future PDP if the development site contains or is within 500 feet of a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined that the site likely include areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection. Schmidt asked if we'll be changing the Code language to require submittal 30 days prior to a PDP submittal. Director Dush said that's exactly what they've been talking about in the recent past —including a meeting today related to the Riverwalk project. Dush said he thinks we need to take a look at a policy change, how it's implemented, and timing of ECS submittals in relation to PDP submittals. Member Stockover said if the ECS is submitted 30 days in advance and it takes 30 days to review that doesn't give the developer much time to put together a development plan. He thinks this all goes to risk Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 3 Director Dush said the intent is rather than wait until the applicant submit a formal preliminary development plan, it's good planning to identify the constraints up front so that we can incorporate those considerations into the design/development of the project. Staff spoke with the applicant at length on November 18. The applicant did mention some of the same concerns and asked if other applications be subject to the same requirement. Dush said his response was that if we had similarly situated development applications, he can't imagine they wouldn't suggest the same condition. Dush said as a matter of fact, the Board will be having a work session in March to talk about the timing of ECSs. Because of the wetlands on the property, staff believes it would be prudent to have the ECS prior to the PDP submittal —not unlike an easement or any other issue. Olt said a conceptual review for property just across Carpenter Road to the north (along the east side of the reservoir) has been set for Monday, November 23. He said they will also be requesting the applicant complete an ECS prior to submittal of their PDP—they'd like to hold them to the same standard as this project. Olt said relative to the timing of the review of the ECS, he'll ask Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt to speak to that. Member Smith, said because he's not familiar with the ECS process; could the applicant submit his ECS one day prior to his PDP. Leavitt said the LUC requires an ECS to be completed, it does not state when it has to be submitted. Historically, they've been submitted when the application comes in. He said in his tenure, they've also come in ahead of time on an informal basis to define what the ECS is going to require and to establish a schedule of the submittal and review. Proposed mitigation measures for impacts of development are a part of the study. If you put the development before the proposed mitigation measures you're getting a plan that most likely is not going to address any potential impact to the natural resources —in this case the wetlands. Member Smith asked if the mitigation method efforts differ based on what the PDP would be —the intensity/type of development. His sense is they need to come simultaneously. Leavitt said you do have an idea of what the development would be like but you don't have is a plan that shows, in this case, development into the wetlands or within the buffer unless there's an agreement that's what's going to happen. Member Campana said that makes sense to have the ECS prior to the PDP being developed but is there a time period that we can add to the condition. Leavitt said he would feel comfortable with 30 days based on scheduling of projects. He would allow him time to inspect the site and work with the consultant and allow them time to develop the site. Campana said he'd like to hear the applicant's response to that. Chair Schmidt said she had one question prior to going to the applicant. She's presuming the study gets done, the PDP comes through and then the PDP expires. Would the study stand? Leavitt said it'd depend upon environmental conditions —what changes on the site. It's based on a case -by -case basis and would require going out to revisit the site. Campana said part of the confusion is the ECS is independent of the PDP-what the conditions of the wetlands are, what needs to be mitigated, and then what you design your PDP around. Campana said if your PDP changes, it shouldn't change your ECS. Applicant's Presentation Larry Gilleland, one of the owners of the property, said he had nothing to add other than their needs to be a policy and that we shouldn't come up with new rules each time. He's not opposed to anything that he's heard as far as the ECS delineating what would be a preserved area —not impacted by development. They are aware there are some wetlands. They are not necessarily in agreement as to the amount of naturally reoccurring wetlands. Hopefully the ECS will delineate what exists by "God's hand" and what exists by "man's hand" and they can agree to mitigate to the degree that is acceptable. Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the C - Commercial Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District". Staff is recommending a condition of approval —"A Comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review prior to the submittal of any application for approval of a Project Development Plan." Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Planner Steve Olt reported this is a voluntary request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 & Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C — Commercial and T — Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east. The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property lies within the Corridor Activity Center boundary in the 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. It gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation (June, 2008) to the north. Staff is recommending that the property be placed in the C — Commercial District, which is in conformance with the City's Structure Plan, that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District", and that it is approved with the following condition: A Comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review prior to the submittal of any application for approval of a Project Development Plan." Board Questions: Member Lingle asked since we're striking "acceptance" to the original recommended condition, he's not sure what the intent is for having it submitted ahead of the Project Development Plan (PDP) as opposed to just being a part of the PDP. Olt said an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required per LUC Section 3.4.1(D) (1). Staff has determined it would be prudent to receive and review an ECS for the subject property prior to an applicant/developer investing the time and expense of preparing a complete PDP that may be subject to changes after review of the ECS. It could result in significant rounds of review and would result in additional time and expense. They believe it would be beneficial to both the .applicant/developer and the City to delineate the wetlands and the impact as they move into their design/development. Lingle said he'd just be concerned "as the applicant" to have it so open ended —he said you could submit for a review and it could be under review for up to a year with no resolution. Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Mapes, Wray, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the agenda and requested the following consent items be pulled for consideration: 1. Minutes from the October 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Hearing 2. Fossil Creek 392 Annexation & Zoning, # 32-09 Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: None Discussion Agenda: 1. Minutes from the October 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Hearing 2. Fossil Creek 392 Annexation & Zoning, # 32-09 3. 1124 W. Mulberry Street — Addition of Permitted Use, # 34-09 4. North College Public Infrastructure Funding Plan Member Lingle requested a change to page 4 of the minutes from the October 151h Hearing. The condition included in the motion near the bottom of page 4 should be changed to read: A 4.5' sidewalk shall be included in Phase 1 running the length of East Lake Street along the north property line of the site. Member Lingle moved to approve item # 1 October 15, 2009 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing as amended. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Project: Fossil Creek 392 Annexation & Zoning, # 32-09 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 & Carpenter Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C — Commercial and T — Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east. The requested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial.