Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/07/2000• n U Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Meyer and Torgerson. Staff Present: Olt, McCallum, Stringer, Jones, Virata, Eckman, Gloss, Byrne and Kuch. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18 (CONTINUED), and July 6, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ00-24 Easement Vacation 3. #18-00 1212 Raintree Drive (The Preserve Apartments) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 4. #13-82CL Oakridge Business Park, Overall Development Plan Discussion Agenda: 5. #10-00 Irish Elementary School, 19t Annexation & Zoning 6. #10-OOA Irish Elementary School, 2"d Annexation & Zoning Staff continued the May 18, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board minutes. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Boa,-y Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 2 Project: #10-00 Irish Elementary School, 1st Annexation & Zoning and #10-OOA Irish Elementary School, 2nd Annexation & Zoning Project Description: Request for a two-phase sequential annexation and zoning for the Irish Elementary School. The Irish Elementary 15S Annexation consists of approximately 0.5 acres of land within the Vine Drive right-of-way. The Irish Elementary 2nd Annexation consists of approximately 12.6 acres of land. These applications will be a total of approximately 14.2 acres of land, and will consists of the existing Irish Elementary School property, the adjacent street right-of-way of Cherry Street and Irish Drive, the portion of Irish Drive north of the school site, and the portion of East Vine Drive from Irish Drive roughly 1040 feet to the east. Recommendation: Approval with LMN Zoning Hearing Testimony, written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, gave a presentation describing the project. He noted the location of the site using site shots. Planner Jones noted new information in the Board's packets consisting of a cost estimate, on an annual basis, from the Police Department on what it would cost to serve this annexation with police service. The other information consists of an incident report from the Sheriffs Department from the beginning of 1999 to the present. Other items were separated copies of the annexation petitions, as the Board has requested. Doug Martine, City of Fort Collins Light & Power gave a presentation to the Board. He is with the Light & Power engineering division. He was unable to give the cost of what it would take to provide service to this annexation. However, he felt it was really irrelevant due to the fact that the nearest electric line is about 1,500 feet away. He stated that since this annexation is in the Urban Growth Boundary, we would anticipate that other areas in the future would annex into the city. Any line that is built at this time to get to the school would also be used as a source for future annexations. Member Craig asked for clarification of language in the annexation petition that states that, the city of Fort Collins shall not be required to assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets, other services or utilities in connection with the property proposed to be annexed". Planner Jones referred the question to Deputy City Attorney Eckman. • Planning and Zoning B•rd Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 3 Member Craig asked if Light & Power would be extending service to the school. Mr. Martine replied that the city would. Member Craig asked for an estimate of what it would cost to extend the service. Mr. Martine replied $50,000 to $60,000. Deputy City Attorney responded that the provision means that the city has no obligation to extend lines or streets into the annexed area and expend city monies except to the extent that the Code requires. When we annex property, we don't automatically assume the obligation to upgrade streets, water and sewer lines. Those are typically developer responsibilities at the time of development. The city does not assume a financial obligation at the time of annexation. Member Craig asked if there was a city ordinance that we will assume that cost because it is a school. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied no. • Member Craig asked if the school wants to annex and use city utilities, they have to pay the estimated $60,000 to extend the electric lines. Mr. Martine replied that the policy has always been that we transfer service at no cost to the customers. Member Craig asked if there was a conflict due to the language in the petition. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the petition states that we do not assume any obligation by reason of the petition. Apparently, the electric utility has a policy of doing this upon all annexations. Mr. Martine added that the city is required to purchase the other utilities (Public Service, REA, etc) facilities under an agreed upon formula. That is standard operating procedure and Light & Power Management has no objections to that policy. Member Craig asked if the estimated $50,000 to $60,000 included the buy out of Public Service facilities. Mr. Martine responded yes. Ron Daggett, representing Poudre School District, the applicant of the petition, gave the • applicant presentation. He stated that since the last meeting, they have provided the statement of police services, the estimate of electrical savings for the school and the Planning and Zoning Boa. Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 4 report that Mr. Jones gave the Board from the Larimer County Sheriffs Department on the activity in the Irish area. He stated he was available for questions from the Board. Chairperson Colton asked about the electrical savings for the school. Mr. Daggett replied that the report was prepared by the city of Fort Collins and the amount is $4,794.21. Member Gavaldon asked Director Gloss about the cost of police services in the urban growth area factored into the cost of annexation. Director Gloss replied that the comment he made earlier was when we develop the urban growth area, we make an assumption that police services can be adequately provided if the parcel is contiguous to a city boundary. Member Gavaldon asked if the $11,597.00 was all part of the cost of doing business in the UGA. Director Gloss replied that was the assumption. When a property is contiguous to a city boundary, and they apply for annexation, the assumption is that we can provide service. If the service is not provided, it would be at the applicant's cost. Chairperson Colton wanted to raise a couple of issues. He stated that when we started talking about annexing some other areas of the city. Aggressive annexation policies versus not. There was quite a bit of discussion about the cost of providing service to those areas versus the tax revenues that would be incurred. In this case there would not be any tax revenue from the school to pay for the additional costs of providing police service. Director Gloss responded that he thought that was true with any public agency. We will not be getting any additional revenue, but we still have some obligation to provide service to those public entities because they are in an urban area. Mr. Martine added that there is some additional revenue that the city receives through the General Fund for the electric bill that they pay. Six percent of their bill does go to the city General Fund in the form of payment in lieu of taxes. Public Comment: None Planning and Zoning Brd Minutes • September 7, 2000 Page 5 Discussion: Member Craig moved to recommend DENIAL of the annexation and zonings at Irish Elementary School. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Craig felt she could not find any real justification to recommend approval of this flag pole annexation. In looking through the Sheriffs responses to the area, a lot of the responses were for, the alarm system at the school going off, or to just check the alarm. She did not see a justification for what it was going to cost the city in that regard. She definitely did not see a justification because it is a flag pole annexation, it is not next to our urban area of the city, and she did not see the city absorbing the bill to put lines in out there at this time. Member Gavaldon asked about the IGA with Larimer County and was anything relevant the Board should know about relative to the School District, or was it just between Fort Collins and the County. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that was just the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the County. The agreement is that the City will consider • annexation of any land that can be made eligible for annexation. The flagpole does make this eligible for annexation and flagpole annexations are permissible under the State Annexation Law. Member Gavaldon asked about the criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary annexation. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the criteria for Member Gavaldon. Member Gavaldon stated he would not support the motion for denial. Chairperson Colton commented that he is not a big supporter of flagpole annexations, he thought that if there is a true contiguity then it was a different story. He did not feel the community of interest policy is met. It has not been shown to him that it is desirable and necessary that the area be annexed into the City of Fort Collins. Chairperson Colton also did not feel the city should assume the obligation of paying $50,000 to $60,000 to run utility lines. He felt this was a financial interest for the School District and the Sheriffs Department. He felt that for the School District to get savings on utilities and the city to incur $50,000 to $60,000 for something that is already in place did not make sense. He did not feel the city should be volunteering its money to the County or the School District without thinking about the impact on its own finances. He stated that if the Council so chooses to make a financial contribution to the County and • the School District, they can do that, but from a land use standpoint this did not make any sense. Planning and Zoning Boa, . Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Daggett reported to the Board that there is an ongoing IGA with the Poudre School District and the city, which indicates, where every possible, the School District will request annexation for any school that meets the criteria. The IGA is now 6 years old and was just renewed two months ago for another 5 years. Member Torgerson commented that he was not concerned with the financial aspect of the annexation. He felt that although it would cost $50,000 now, the power lines will ultimately be used when the adjacent properties annex, which we should assume they would because they are in the UGA. He would not be supporting the motion for denial. Member Craig was concerned about how the city police would patrol this school and the additional cost that is not in the budget. Chairperson Colton felt there should be an agreement between the city police and the School District that the city would answer calls at Irish Elementary School. Deputy City Attorney responded that was not possible because the city police are not deputized to serve in the County. Member Carpenter asked if the city police have agreed to serve this area. Planner Jones stated that the Police Department was routed the information on this annexation and did not have any objections or problems serving this annexation. Member Carpenter commented that if the Police Department did not have comments or any problems with this annexation, then she felt it was not up to this Board to decide whether there would be a problem with the Police getting out there. She agreed with Member Torgerson's comments on the money for the utilities. Although she is not a fan of flagpole annexations, she felt that the school needed better services and she would not be supporting the motion for denial. The motion was denied 2-5 with Members Carpenter, Gavaldon, Meyer, Bernth and Torgerson voting against the motion. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the annexation and zoning of LMN at Irish Elementary School. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. She felt that it was fiscally irresponsible to annex this property at this time. She did not think the school would decrease in service from what they have now. The Sheriff is currently taking care of their needs and she felt it would be a long time before these neighborhoods ever come into the city and help pickup the cost of extending the utilities. • • Planning and Zoning B•d Minutes • September 7, 2000 Page 7 Member Colton would not be supporting the motion and wanted to pass onto Council his concern about policies extending utilities through flagpole annexations. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting in the negative. Other Business: Recommendation: Recommendation to City Council regarding the opposition of Amendment 24 Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services gave a staff presentation. He stated that this issue had been discussed previously and the Board asked for more information. Tonight there is a staff recommendation and a resolution for Council consideration on September 1 gth Mr. Byrne informed the Board that the Campaign Fair Practices Act prevents the staff from spending any time, money or resources on either advocating or opposing any item on the ballot. Staff is permitted to provide, in response to Council requests, factual pro and con analysis and evaluation and recommendations. Members of the Board asked questions pertaining to Amendment 24 and Mr. Byrne addressed those questions. Public Comment: Linda Hopkins, Fort Collins resident commented on Amendment 24. She felt that the over the head baseball approach will, with its ill-defined far-reaching language, do nothing to resolve traffic or housing problems in any community. While state wide issues are of concern, she believes that it is the responsibility of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board to hold fast to our local community goals. She asked the board not to trade off hard earned achievements of urban service area plans, utility plans, our 20-year planning horizon in the urban growth area boundary, City Plan and neighborhood plans simply for an opportunity to make a political statement. She felt that Fort Collins and Larimer County are far better served by this board and the City Council opposing Amendment 24, avoiding stalling effects of litigation and rather maintain diligence and attention to the issues of regional cooperation and much needed affordable housing. Public Input Closed. Planning and Zoning Boa, _ Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 8 Discussion: Member Carpenter asked if Mr. Byrne thought that development would come to a halt for a year or two if this Amendment passes. Mr. Byrne replied he did not think so. He felt there would continue to be development. He thought that the city could immediately establish the committed areas under the provisions of the initiative and have the Council approve those. That process does not require a vote of the people. Council can establish the committed areas based on the criteria in the initiative. We would also be permitted to continue to issue building permits on projects that have already been approved but not built out. Also anything in the pipeline that is a valid development application could proceed through. At the same time, it would be limiting and there would be dysfunction's in the smooth flow of development applications and in extension of development. Member Carpenter asked what this amendment would do to housing prices. Mr. Byrne replied that he thought it would limit supply for a period of time, but would not have any effect on demand, therefore prices would go up as a result of that. Member Meyer commented that she did not agree with amending the Constitution, she felt that the Legislature needed to learn to work together. She felt that a Constitutional amendment is not going to solve the problem. Colorado is a diverse state and it is not all Front Range communities, there is a large portion of this state that is not on the Front Range. Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of Resolution 2000 to City Council expressing its opposition to the proposed Initiative 24, amending the Colorado Constitution by addition of a new article entitled, Citizen Managed Growth. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Carpenter commented that she has studied this and had given it lots of thought. She believes strongly in planning and that we need to make a conscious decision about how we want Fort Collins and our state to grow. Member Carpenter stated that she concluded that the devil was in the details. She was worried about this constitutional amendment, and has a problem with the issue being approached in this manner. She felt that without a revision process, this constitutional amendment would not work. She has concerns with the affect on affordable housing and she felt that any kind of affordable housing would be difficult. She would be supporting the motion as it stands. Planning and Zoning Ord Minutes • September 7, 2000 Page 9 • Member Gavaldon felt that the Legislature needed to take the lead in getting something done and not make the citizens do it. He felt that communities are doing their part in planning for their futures. The city has its processes in place and he felt this amendment would be a step back to move forward. Member Torgerson concurred with Member Carpenter and her comments. He felt that the amendment was very poorly written. When you look at the unintended consequences of this, he sees a lot of unintended things happening that are not responsible growth. He supports responsible growth and felt this would also have a negative affect on affordable housing. He would be supporting the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. She felt that over 5 years and 100 bills taken to the Legislature, pretty much tells us that the Legislature is not going to address this, they will avoid it. Member Craig felt that Larimer County should have specific growth areas, we don't have lines that tell the County we will not clean up your messes. This amendment is asking for those lines. She felt that the amendment had a lot in it that the Council and staff did support when it was a bill. She felt that Amendment 24 has a lot of people thinking about what they do want out of this state. That people do want some kind of comprehensive plans or some measure from the various communities to address growth. • Chairperson Colton stated he also would not be supporting the motion. He felt that City Plan has done a lot for this city, but is still lacking in some areas that Amendment 24 addresses. He would like to see limits and an urban growth area people can vote on. He liked Amendment 24 because it is not "no growth" or "pro growth," but people get to say, once they see the facts, the proposed areas, what it will cost, and how it is going to be funded, whether to approved it or not. He felt it was fundamental democracy. He believes in full disclosure and the ability of the citizens to control the destiny of their city. He felt that the Amendment would curb sprawl in the County. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting in the negative. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.