Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/25/1980PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES February 25, 1980 Board Present: Paul Eckman, Carolyn Haase, Gary Ross, Ed Van Driel, Phyllis Wells Staff Present: Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Don Deagle Wells: Called meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Described the Planning and Zoning Board, emphasizing the importance of public input. Explained the procedures to be followed in the meeting. 1. - 3. Consent Agenda Wells: Explained the consent agenda and asked if anyone wished any of the items to be removed from consent. Haase: Requested removal of Item 2. Van Driel: Pointed out that "east" in the Whittington Brothers Rezoning description should read "west". Wells: Asked for additions and corrections to the minutes. Van Driel: Moved approval of consent agenda items 1. and 3. Eckman: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. Wells: Introduced Planning staff. 2. #15-80 Harmony East Commercial P.U.D. - County Referral Chianese: Stated she would answer any questions. Haase: Asked for a quick over -view of the site, the topography, traffic patterns, any variances allowed. Chianese: Stated the most important considerations were the Highway Department's, as described in the staff report. Explained the variances granted by the County on the site, and noted the problems with the topography. Ross: Asked if the variance to 40' was higher or lower than the standard. Chianese: Replied it is higher. P & Z Minutes • 2/25/80 Page 2 Haase Stated that included on the site are three office buildings, with 35,000 sq. ft. total, and a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant. Noted the building footprints are given as 28,124 sq. ft. Asked for clarification: 35,000 sq. ft. is therefore cumulative total floor space of the three office buildings? Asked Kaplan to give a few comments on the site development. Kaplan: Explained the need for the height variance in order to take advantage of the topography and build 22 story buildings which, from the street, would appear substantially lower. Stated the P.U.D. was done according to their interpretation of City P.U.D. regulations. Noted that the zoning on the site is T-Tourist and that their proposed uses are less intensive than those allowed, except for the restaurant. Described the amenity of Mail Creek behind the offices and restaurant. Pointed out that they had a shared curbcut with the neighboring property and that all curbcut questions had been resolved with the Highway Department. Stated that the restaurant and offices could share the parking due to the different times of use. Also noted that the planner for the neigh- boring development had given a verbal commitment to allow overflow parking in their lot, if necessary. Stated they felt the parking ratio was adequate, and the same as approved for the Fort Collins National Bank P.U.D. Pointed out that they would have developed the property in the City by pursuing annexation if it had been known that that alternative would happen so soon, but that they elected to go with the County since that process had already been begun. Stated that their plan had been approved by the Planning Commission in the County. Wells: Asked for speakers on the proposal. Haase: Moved approval of the Harmony East Commercial P.U.D. Van Driel: Second. Vote: Approved, 5 - 0. 4. Planning Division Report Smith: Stated that he would defer the report until the end of the meeting in the interests of time. 5. #17-80 Change to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to the RE Zone Description: A proposed change to allow farm animals as accessory uses in the RE Zone. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Planning Division Smith: Gave staff report, describing the proposal. Eckman: Asked who would define what farm animals are. Smith: Replied the homeowners' association could do so. In the absence of an association, the Zoning Administrator would decide on the number, rather than the species to be permitted. Stated that the more restrictive rule would be applied. Stated the type should be best defined by the neighbor- hood, which could be done with covenants. P & Z Minutes 2/25/80 Page 3 Haase: Asked, looking at the proposed ordinance which states that the determination of the Zoning Administrator shall be conclusive as to the number of animals permitted, and shall be based upon such factors, etc., if there were to be no right of appeal to the City Council. Smith: Stated the language is to determine the administrative responsibility and that it is possible to appeal to the ZBA and Council. Wells: Asked for speakers from the audience. Dr. Harry Gorman:, Resident of Skyline Acres. Expressed concern about ancillary facilities such as barns and electric fences. Smith: Replied that accessory buildings would be allowed; existing buildings could be maintained in perpuity and new ones would have to meet the City Building Code. Stated that existing electrified fences could remain, but new ones would require a variance from the ZBA. Van Driel: Asked if Code has any provisions for farm buildings. Smith: Stated that the City uses the Uniform Building Code, which includes all types of buildings. Eckman: Expressed concern for the lack of definition of farm animals, since home- owners could conceivably include dangerous animals. Ross: Asked what happens when there is no homeowners' association to make these definitions. Smith: Stated that staff would only regulate the number of animals of any kind to be allowed on a piece of property, but would not decide which kinds of animals would be permitted. Wells: Asked how staff would make that decision. Smith: Replied that agricultural experts would be consulted. Wells: Stated that this, like other violations in the City, would only be handled on a complaint basis. Smith: Replied that is correct. Ross: Asked if, as a homeowner, he could create his own association and set up extremely lenient restrictions, allowing excessive numbers of animals, and if so, how that situation could be handled. Smith: Stated the more restrictive standards would be the guildeline, so the Zoning could take care of it. Van Driel: Stated he felt there was a void, in the absence of the homeowners' association, in the lack of a definition of farm animals. Smith: Noted this is primarily for the purpose of annexation of existing development, not for new building. Stated the whole purpose of growth area study is to prevent this type of development in the fringe area of the City. P & Z Minutes • February 25, 1980 Page 4 Eckman: Suggested the addition of the term "domestic" farm animals, to prevent the possibility of some kind of wild animal farm. Deagle: Stated that, in drawing up the ordinance amendment, it had been decided to go with a general, common-sense description, then, if there were problems with it, it could be changed. Stated that if the Board wished a more detailed definition, it could be done. Ross: Moved recommendation of approval to City Council. Van Driel: Second. Ross: Expressed the opinion that this amendment would take care of the annexation well, but that it was hurriedly being added to a zoning which was not intended to have it and could cause problems in the future. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 6. #18-80 Change to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Group Homes Description: A proposed change to specifically define Group Homes and designate the zones where Group Homes would be allowed. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Planning Division Smith: Described the proposed amendment. Ross: Asked if there should not be a standard ratio of the number of residents for a given floor area square footage. Smith: Replied that each home would have to be licensed by an agency which would have its own standards, and the staff felt it would be better to entrust the agengcies, which have the expertise, to make those determinations. Van Driel: Asked for clarification on the zones in which homes would be allowed. Smith: Stated that RM uses are allowed in the RLP, the RP, and the RLP when done as a P.U.D. Haase: Asked if the group homes would be allowed in the RE. Smith: Replied they would not. Wells: Asked why the lot size requirements were changed. Smith: Replied the size they were suggesting is the standard size lot the houses are built on in the RM zone, and that using that size, the number of possible sites would be increased over requiring standard multi -family lot sizes. Wells: Asked if staff were recommending site plan review in the R-M zone. Smith: Replied that is correct. Wells: Asked for comments on the state ruling. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 5 Smith: Stated that the state statute deals only with a developmentally disabled group home and states that such a home cannot be excluded from any residential zone in the city. Stated that, despite some court cases, the court has not resolved the question of whether the state has the authority to regulate the location of group homes. Noted that Pete Ruggiero, who wrote the memo, was present, and could answer any further questions. Haase: Asked how the court did resolve the issue. Ruggiero: Stated that, in Westminster, the case had been sent back to the city council, but that, in the meantime, a permit had been issued for an alternative site and it was resolved in that manner. In Broomfield, the court decided that, by Broomfield's definition, a group home, in this case for six elementary school age boys, could be established in a zone. In each case, the court said they would look at the issue of the authority of the state to regulate the locations of group homes, but then failed to resolve the issue. Haase: Stated that this would then be ripe for a test case. Ruggiero: Stated that could happen, but that the court could also find ways of sidestepping the issue again. Wells: Asked for comments from the audience. Lyle Wiggen: Resident on East Lake. Stated the presentation was well done, but that there is a lot of jargon in it, so asked Smith to clarify whether they were .talking about anyone coming into any neighborhood and setting up a group home, and if so, what type of group home. Smith: Stated the proposal is to allow group homes in Medium Density Residential zones, maximum 20 dwelling units per acre density, with only very limited business uses permitted; in RLP zone, Low Density Planned Residential, maximum 6 dwelling units per acre; in the RP, Planned Residential zone with a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. Noted that this would allow group homes in many parts of town, but not in R-E or R-L, the most restrictive residential zones. Suggested consulting a zoning map to ascertain whether a group home could be allowed in any particular individual's neighborhood. To describe a "group home", read the definition from the proposed ordinance change. Wiggen: Stated he understood from legal counsel that this is a very gray area, and suggested that the Board take note of this and be prepared to say no and prove it in a court of law. Expressed the opinion that the City should not accept a ruling which could be detrimental to any neighborhood. Wells: Stated there may be some misunderstanding about the court cases and the City's position. Noted that the state may say that group homes must be allowed in all zones, but that the City was requesting a limitation to only certain zones, short of what the state may require. Deagle: Pointed out that it was a state statute which was being discussed, and that the statute refers only to homes for the developmentally disabled. Stated that the proposed ordinance change included the broader term, group homes, because it is an issue the City has not previously addressed, and it is becoming more pressing. r P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 6 Eckman: Asked if the City was making this proposal, not in deference to state statutes, but according to what staff feels would be appropriate zones. Smith: Replied that was correct. Eckman: Asked if it would be possible to include the R-M zone and at the same time, exclude the ancillary zones that follow along with it. Smith: Replied that could be done if the Board so desired. Haase: Asked Smith whether the staff had had any discussions with the County Social Services Department and any state representatives. Smith: Replied he had had discussions with a variety of people, including people from the state and the county. Suggested that some of those people were present and could answer questions directly as there exists a great variety of opinion on the issue. Wells: Asked if there were anyone who wished to comment. Pat Norton: Representative of a group home for the developmentally disabled• Noted that the definition of group homes lumps together many different kinds of group homes and that a community may feel differently about one kind than another. Pointed out that the governing agencies of the group homes have a great deal of responsibility for the administration of the homes and for the people who will be permitted to reside in them. Stated they would not allow those who should be institutionalized to reside in a group home. Ross: Stated that in Denver many who should be institutionalized have not been, and expressed a lack of trust in those who in the past have had the governing responsibility. Norton: Stated her expertise is limited to the developmentally disabled and suggested possibly someone else could address the issue of psychiatric facilities. Said there are eighty developmentally disabled group homes in Colorado which have operated successfully. Haase: Asked Norton if her agency adhered very closely to the rules and regulations that come from the Colorado Department of Social Services. Stated she had a booklet that outlines procedures quite clearly, and that it mentions inves- tigations and inspections coming from the local authority. Asked if it were Norton's experience that there is monitoring through the county department and from the state periodically, and noted there are reports to follow also --on site inspection. Norton: Replied there were definitely investigations and inspections and that it would be rare not to have a weekly inspection by the county. Stated the state visits often and also has a yearly survey. Noted that since they are new in the county, they are being very closely monitored by the Department of Social Services, the Division for Developmental Disabilities and the Department of Institutions. Stated representatives of those agencies had been in contact with the Planning Department and were there at the meeting due to their interest in the issue. wells: - Asked if there were not a substantial savings to the taxpayer with group homes P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 7 institutions.for those people who do not have to be institutionalized. over Norton: Replied there is and that there is also a mandate to get 199 people in homes or nursing home facilities. Colorado out of institutions and into group Van Driel: Asked what zone the presently existing group home is located in. Smith: Replied, RH. Eckman: Asked what home that was. Smith: Replied it is the Pioneer Home that Pat owns and operates. Wells: Stated that from conversations with people on various boards in the county, difficulty finding sites for group she was aware that they are having great homes. ExpAUFjpjingroup homes could well be designed into developing areas of Asked Ross: town while it might be more difficult to fit them into older areas. into new developments. if there were a way to include group homes only Deagle: Stated that at the present time, that would probably be in violation of the districts must be uniform throughout city charter which states that zoning why they requested the amendment the city. Said that this was one reason in to insure compatibility with neigh- calling for site plan review order Stated that the Board could determine, for instance, the boring uses. appropriate maximum number of residents for a proposed home. Van Driel: Asked Eckman if he were implying that the use should be limited to the RH and RM zones. Eckman: Replied that he had decided he was more comfortable with it the way it is. Van Driel: Moved approval of the proposed ordinance with the changes relating to the 50 feet, and site plan review lot area of 6,000 square feet and lot width of in the R-M zone. Ross: Second. Deagle: Asked consideration be given to eliminating the numbers requirements. Van Driel: Stated he meant to include that in the motion. Wells: Asked for public comment. Tim Sagen: Resident on Morgan Street. Asked if the ordinance would allow group homes in an area zoned for duplex housing. Wells: Replied it would. Sagen: Stated it seemed the city was responding to a state statute which may or may not be a problem. Asked the Board to recommend against the proposal. Olin Ruff: Resident on East Swallow Road. Stated he had had the traumatic experience - of living next to a group home in Fort Collins for three edyears. wSaid should.° supervision was non-existent and that P Pla- P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 8 not have been, and that it was scary. Wells: Asked if, in his experience, the responsible agency had been responsive to his concerns. Ruff: Replied the original agency was not, but that, in the end John Sharner of Foothills Gateway took it over and that his was a first-class operation and could make a group home work. Stated that house parents were changed every three months; that there was one resident who threw dangerous objects into neighboring yards who was finally removed due to the severity of his emotional problems; yet the agency had assured the neighborhood that no such individuals would reside there. Wells: Asked if, before the home was set up, the agency had met with the neighborhood to hear their concerns. Ruff: Replied they did not. Stated the city should. be very careful about what they allow. Wells: Stated it was obvious that there is a heavy responsibility on the agencies in charge of these homes. H. M. Gott: Green Street resident. Recommended the Board deny this ordinance change. Stated there is no doubt there is a need, but that there is doubt on where homes should be allowed, and further study should be done. Asked for those in the audience opposed to the change to stand. Wells: Pointed that a significant part of the ordinance change is the requirement the for site plan review which includes assessment of the impact of proposal Stated that on the surrounding neighborhood,.including the social impact. the requirement for site plan review will encourage the agencies involved to initiate discussions with the affected community. Stated that failure to pass some ordinance concerning the location of group homes would be negligent. Expressed the opinion that it is important for the whole community to share the responsibility, and that this ordinance change does leave out a large part of the community, but that it is one which could work. Stated it is the Board's responsibility to consider the social impact when reviewing the site plan. Van Driel: Asked if the site plan review would be by the Planning and Zoning Board with a public hearing. Wells: Replied it would. Vote: Eckman: yes, in light of the site plan review function which enables the Board to ensure that the home is made to be compatible with the neighborhood; Haase: no, stating that caution is needed, that additional investigation and study is required, that the categories are too broad, that there is concern with the enforcement of rules and regulations, but that the problem cannot be ignored and should be studied further; Wells: yes; Ross: no, not because of any problems with the zones or with the need for the homes, but because the city is giving up all control of these homes to the governing agencies, and the city has shown -itself to be very credible in looking after such things, while it has very little input to the government agencies --felt it could get out of hand without more city control; Van Driel: no, with the recommendation for further study. Motion failed, 3 - 2. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 9 Ross: Addressed the audience, stating there is a need in this community and that if their only interest was in stopping group homes, they would run into oppo- sition at future hearings, because the Board needs help on this issue, and needs it from the whole community. 7. #19-80 Change to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Family Care Homes and Child Care Centers Description: A proposed change to bring City zoning ordinances and defi- nitions for Family Care Homes and Child Care Centers in line with County Department of Social Services definitions. Applicant: Planning Division. Smith: Described the proposed amendment. Wells: Asked if larger child care centers would be allowed in the RLP. Smith: Replied they would, as they are now in a P.U.D. Wells: Asked for public comment. Norman Wynn: Resident on Green Street. Spoke in support of the amendment, noting the need for child care centers due to the state of the economy and the conse- quent need for both parents in a family to work. Stated the family care home should be near schools so that school -age children may be cared for before and after school. Pointed out that the need would be even greater if the School District should approve a four -day week or close schools in December and January. Commended the Planning staff for their preparation of the proposed amendment. Van Driel: Noted that the proposed ordinance amendment would affect younger children as well as school age. Wynn: Said that did not change his opinions. Disagreed with the notion that adja- homes are cent property values would go down where child care permitted. H. M. Gott: Resident on Green Street. Expressed opposition to the ordinance. Accepted is it should the need for this kind of facility, but said the question where that no lot be allowed. Stated that the covenants on his property state than a residence. Asked in that area shall be used for any other purpose facilities in the city for day care in violation of if there were currently R-L zoning. Smith: Replied there are 195 licensed day-care homes in the city. Gott: Asked if any day-care homes presently existing in the R-L zone would be in violation. Smith: Replied, not necessarily, depending on when the facility was approved and has over the years --whether they on the fact that the interpretation changed are home occupations or not. Wells: Pointed out that violations are usually brought to the attention of the city only by citizen complaints. • • P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 10 Gott: Stated that the amendment would erode the zoning and make it easier to change it for any reason. Pointed out the importance of adequate and dependable zoning. Expressed the opinion that the amendment is a shotgun approach to a rifle problem and that R-L zoning should be left as R-L zoning. Asked the Board to at least recommend further study, and asked those present who agreed with him to stand. Wynne: Asked those in favor of the amendment to stand. Don Jackson: Resident on West Mountain. Stated he felt he was just zoned out, as he is raising eight kids. Stated he lived near a child care facility with up to forty children and had never had any problem with them. Stated he felt there would be no erosion to property values. Tim Sagen: Asked if this amendment would allow employees other than the residents to work in the child-care home. Smith: Replied it would not. Sagen: Asked if it would take precedence over covenants. Smith: Replied the covenants would have to specifically preclude family -care facilities and noted that the city does not enforce covenants. Ross: Stated that covenants would take precedence over city zoning. Wells: Stated that family care homes which would be allowed in the R-L zone would Mor only six children or less, much like a baby-sitting situation. Smith: Emphasized that the covenants would have to specifically exclude family -care homes, that covenants preventing any other use than residential would not be sufficient because this is broadening the definition of what is allowed as a single-family residence. Sagen: Pointed out that anyone presently operating an illegal child-care facility is probably careful not to provoke any complaints, whereas, if such facilities were legal, they might be more of a problem. Ross: Asked how many total children are allowed? Smith: Replied a total of six, including the children in the family. Van Driel: Noted that only two of the children could be under school age. Cathy Glenn: With the Social Services as the Child Care Licensing person. Stated there are approximately 137 licensed homes in R-L zoning, but noted there are probably twice that many unlicensed homes which can be a problem and which the state would like to see licensed. Stated the state has minimum rules and regulations for the establishment of day care homes, provides training --some mandatory. Pointed out that working parents would like to have homes near schools where children could stay and that schools are in R-L zones. Said that presently there are children going home with keys and staying alone for 1 to 3 hours, with the potential for creating more problems for a neighborhood than a licensed home where they could have supervision. Stated that many family - care homes take in only one child in addition to their own family. Noted - that many complaints turn out to be about unlicensed homes where there are P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 11 twelve to fifteen children and the day-care provider cannot provide sufficient supervision --a matter of concern to Social Services with respect to the Stated she could answer further questions. welfare of the children. Wells: Stated the only way licensing can be enforced is by complaints; there is no way the city could go out and look for unlicensed homes. Glenn: Pointed out that if day-care homes were denied, they would continue to operate the welfare of the without licenses and without control, thereby compromising children which is her main concern. Blanche Magnuson: Resident on Morgan St. Asked if children would be allowed to stay over weekends and overnight in a small day-care center. Smith: Replied not in a small day-care center or in the R-L zone in a family -care in the R-L would be in foster homes. home. The only overnight care allowed Stated it could be allowed in the day-care facilities in the R-M zone. Magnuson: Asked for a definition of family -care center; read from an advertisement in be available. the paper which stated over -night and weekend care would Wells: Asked if the home were advertised as licensed. Magnuson: Replied it was. Smith: Stated that a small day-care center as defined in Item 2 on Page 4 would not homes as defined on be allowed in the R-L zone at all. Only family -care 3. It is for the bottom of Page 1, through Page 2 and about half of Page day-care only, no overnight or weekend care. Magnuson: Took issue with the notion that property values are not affected; said that if, in the the Social Services many realtors would disagree. Asked past, licensed day-care centers without regard for the location. Smith: Replied he assumed they would select a suitable location, but they would not ask the city whether or not it was appropriate. Magnuson: is de re the care centerstwouldtbetinhtheity city, unlessnthehpeopletwhooliveithereecomplain. Smith: Replied that is presently true for family -care homes and that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to more specifically define those. Magnuson: Referring to earlier references to covenants regarding farm animals, stated but not so important she was glad the covenants were important for animals, for single-family residences. Stated she was glad to have the distinction between family -care and day-care homes. Asked how many children would be allowed in family -care homes in the summer. Glenn: Stated that the limit is six children, plus two more after school. During the summer, the limit is six at all times. Winn: Stated theems with would be nothing to generatedabycarfour-daymes would beential school week, or January school closing. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 12 Mr. Wiggin: Resident on East Lake. Asked Glenn if there were different requirements depending on the number of children to be cared for. Glenn: If there are to be six or fewer children, stated she would do the licensing. do the licensing which entails If more than six children, the state would entirely different qualifications, including city inspections and other requirements. Wiggin: Stated that large day-care centers then have better supervision, personnel, for the safety of children not and qualifications and provide a guarantee available in family -care homes. Kay Robison: Resident on North McKinley. Stated she is a registered nurse and mother of home for her children are the two. Said her reasons for choosing a day-care Mr. Wiggin gave for preferring day-care centers. There would be less same to illness due to the smaller number of children. Said the super- exposure vision would be better with six children than with forty. Ross: Moved recommendation of approval to City Council. Eckman: Second. Van Driel: Asked how the location of day-care centers would be regulated since the county has no rules on it. Smith: Replied that family -care homes would be allowed anywhere and that day-care centers would have to apply for building permits and would be thereby regu- lated. If a complaint was received concerning a day-care center operating in an existing building, it could be shut down as a zoning violation. Van Driel: Referred to the one on West Mountain. Smith: Replied it could not be removed, but any change or expansion could be controllec by the city. Haase: Asked if there were no control over the number of family -care homes in a neighborhood. Smith: Replied that was the case. Haase: Stated then, that there could be several in a neighborhood. Wells: Pointed out the problems related to the lack of day-care facilities in neigh- borhoods --time and energy spent in transportation, distance from the home and home community. Stated the need for day-care is there and is increasing and that it is the responsibility of the Board and the people of the city to ensure the availability of adequate neighborhood day-care. Eckman: Expressed the opinion that fears are more imagined than real concerning day -car as there is a facility next door to his house which is no problem at all. Member of the audience: Stated her property values had decreased due to the proximity of a day-care facility. Asked the Board if they had day-care facilities in their neighborhood. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 13 Wells: Replied she has one right across the street and that Mr. Van Driel had already commented on the one in his neighborhood. Audience: Asked if the zoning were R-L. Van Driel: Pointed out that the one in his neighborhood is a non -conforming use as it was in existence before the zoning was established. Vote: Van Oriel: yes; Ross: yes; Wells: yes; Haase: yes, noting, however, that the effectiveness of family -care should be checked, and supporting the motion because the need exists. but with emphasis for caution and concern in review on the effectiveness of family -care and its impact on the neighborhoods; Eckman: yes, for many of the same reasons he voted yes on the previous motion. Motion carried, 5 - 0. Ross: Stated he is a realtor and an appraiser and that homes near day-care centers are desirable to families where, potentially, both parents would be working. Said that a very bad day-care center would affect the property values, but that licensing provides control. 8. #218-79 Horsetooth - Harmony West Annexation Description: A proposal to annex Section #34, bounded by Horsetooth, Harmony, Shields, and Taft Hill Roads, to the City of Fort Collins. Applicant: Various property owners, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 South Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Wells: Explained procedures to be followed for the hearing on the proposed annexation. Chianese: Gave staff report. Audience: Asked for definition of P.-L-P. Chianese: Replied that it is a residential zone, allowing for six units per acre and some commercial development as part of a commercial allotment. Wells: Asked for approximate density of R-E. Chianese: Replied, lot sizes of minimum 9,000 square feet. Van Driel: Asked if commercial were permitted in the R-E zone. Chianese: Replied there was not. Les Kaplan: Representing applicants. Stated the substantive issues here are how the annexa- tion will affect the developed areas which are part of it, and suggested hearing the concerns of the people in those areas and seeing how they can be worked out. Wells: Asked for comments to be brief. Jason Schweizer: Resident on Crescent Drive. Presented a petition against the annexation signed by more than 200 people. Pointed out that they were being included in a process they had no wish to be included in. Stated they would be brought into the city with the ability to maintain approximately their present life style with higher taxes for it. Said the memo of understanding was no guarantee,, and it was important to the residents to be able to maintain the life style they, • • P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 14 had when they purchased the property. Bob Peterson: Resident of Goodell Ln. for 15 years in the first Imperial Estates Subdivision development district, Stated they had made a mistake in not maintaining their the County Commissioners and their legal counsel who assured on the advice of the residents they would look after their interests, which they have not. Said they are now re-forming an organization in order to have a voice. Said they are opposed to the annexation and are being brought in against their will. Stated only ten or twelve families in the area, in response to a survey, did not care one way or the other whether they are annexed; all the others are opposed. Stated they will speak as one voice before City Council. Dr. Gorman: Resident on Richmond Dr. in Skyline Acres. Said they are gambling on a zoning to R-E with animals which does not even exist. Preferred the city would go away and leave them alone. Pointed out that the statute specifically states that 51% of the property, not of the people, is necessary for approval --the. people are nearly 100% against annexation, but four or five property owners can come into a community and tear it down and build what they want and the people have nothing to say. Stated that presently the streets are over- burdened and the streets should be improved before development takes place. Expressed concern about curbcuts on Shields and their hope to be able to retain those cuts when Shields is widened. Stated they want cul-de-sacs, not through streets. Stated they want to retain their surface water, their animals (said he could provide a definition of farm animals), their septic tanks. Expressed appreciation for Smith's explanations to the area residents, but expressed concern about the time when the present staff and Council are gone --especially with respect to the memorandum of understanding which holds no legal weight. Objected to the agenda description of the zoning which states R-L-P--stated they want to have the R-E they were assured they could have. Billie Jean Bell: Resident on Royal Drive. Stated she knew that the farm area to the south would not remain that way, but emphasized that they wished to keep their area as it is, with the large parcels of property. Said the petition which had been presented was not yet complete. Said they did not want to have to pay for the sewer, which is usually done if the sewer goes down your street, whether or not you connect to it or not --asked if that were correct. Deagle: Responded that it depended on whether an improvement district were formed to install a sewer and if the property had been determined to be "specially benefitted" from that. Bell: Asked who determines that. Stated they wanted everything put down in writing before they consented to annexation, so they would be protected when the remainder of the area is developed. Randolph Starr: Attorney with Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association which provides electricity to Imperial Estates. Stated that some of their concerns were probably not properly addressed at this meeting, but for the benefit of the owners, staff and Council memebers he would do so. Stated that as soon as this area was annexed, PVREA service would be terminated to the area and there are no provisions for the practical matters of changing the service. Said the PVREA Board of Directors was willing to talk with the city about this and similar potential problems. Pointed out that PVREA is user -owned and interested in protecting the property rights of its members. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 15 Haase: Asked about a time -line for the provision of these services. Starr: Replied that, as there are no Provisions for a change, it would take some time. Said there are also legal problems involved. Discussed briefly how the problem was worked out in Loveland as the result of several lawsuits. Said these problems exist with respect to all utilities. Van Driel: Asked for a general description of the agreement with Loveland. Starr: Replied it provided for a way for the city to compensate Poudre Valley for its facilities and an orderly transfer of services. It also called for moving of PVREA facilities where the city did not take them over. Van Driel: Pointed out that the city charter does not permit service by other companies, so compensation would have to be made to Poudre Valley for lines and equipment. Starr: Said compensation must also be provided for lost revenue. Van Driel: Asked if the agreement with Loveland provided that PVREA could provide service within the city of Loveland. Starr: Replied it is possible. Van Driel: Stated that the situations with the two cities were then not exactly the same. Starr: Pointed out that Loveland is a statutory city and Fort Collins is not, but that that does not necessarily mean that the city could not allow provision of services from outside. Reiterated the importance of settling these matters before they cause major problems. Deagle: Responded that the city had anticipated there could be some difficulties and welcomed their offer to discuss the situation with them. Pointed out that if the annexation were approved, it would not become law until May, providing a sufficient period of time to resolve the problems. Asked the Board, on behalf of the city's Light and Power not to table the annexation request at this time for Mr. Starr's reasons. Wells: Asked counsel to comment on homeowners' associations and the viability of covenants to address residents' concerns. Peterson: Stated there were four sets of covenants on their property established by the builders before the property was sold. Deagle: Stated that normally covenants constitute nothing more than a private contractue agreement between homeowners and perhaps a developer, placing restrictions upon the development of that property. Typically, the city is not a party to these understandings and does not take part in enforcing them. Generally, they are enforceable, but situations can be encountered where, over a period of time, the covenants have been ignored and therefore the homeowner has waived his right to have the covenants enforced. Otherwise, if not race -related or something of that nature, covenants which have been enforced in the past are enforceable in a civil court action. Starr: Responded that it took over two years to work out an agreement with Loveland P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 16 and suggested that the Board include in its recommendation to Council the imperative nature of the problem. Joe Schmidt: Resident on S. Taft Hill Road. Asked what would happen to people who had Stated they established businesses in their homes if the city takes over. should be able to continue their life styles and businesses. Smith: Stated any existing business activity would come in as a non -conforming use. by the Planning and Zoning Board Expansion of the use would require review it his understanding that those conditions and the City Council. Said was similar to those presently existing in the same area in the county, are very therefore there would be very little impact. Schmidt: Asked if he could add to his equipment. Smith: Replied he could replace equipment, but not add to it without city approval. Schmidt: Asked if it would be the same as with animals. Smith: Replied that animals would be allowed as an accessory use, not as a non- conforming use, so the two situations are very different. Alma Cook: Resident on West Horsetooth Road. Presented petition pertaining to the of the Trend Home Subdivision across the street, requesting the removal at the completion of the homes, factory at the end of the seven years, or first. Showed pictures of the factory. Stated there were whichever comes 26 there daily, in addition to the moving of the houses, the tractors, cars and the noise. Stated it was not zoned for a factory, and should not have been allowed there. Asked the Board to consider this problem. Bell: Stated that as ordinances can be amended at any time, they would prefer be cooperative. agreements attached to their deeds, then they might more Emphasized the need for some type of firm agreement. Wells: Asked Smith to comment on the home factory. Smith: Stated the factory was approved with the condition that it be evaluated for it. Said, that from his research, another use when Trend was through with to have been no agreements about the city taking or utilizing there appeared it. Stated it would be appropriate for the Board to transmit to the Council any recommendations as to its potential use. Wells: Said she had understood that the factory was only for the construction of those homes, and once they were built, it was to disappear. Smith: Said there had been some discussion as to its use as a community center. there have been Noted that he had not been in on the discussions, but that other instances where the city has taken over such buildings. Wells: Expressed appreciation for having the matter brought to the Board's attention, for the and asked to continue the discussion on the annexation present. Jim Mooney: Resident on S. Taft Hill Road. Stated he understood the petitioners did not and that that, originally have sufficient contiguity to request annexation the do not want annexation, along with the fact that the majority of people should be taken into account. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 17 Wells: Asked if he understood that the area would be annexed anyway within a few years. Mooney: Replied that a few years meant a lot of tax money and could mean changes in the laws. Stated he could see no benefit to the residents in annexation, noting that they presently have snow removal on all streets, adequate police, lower taxes on property and utilities. Haase: Asked for clarification about the contiguity issue. Smith: Replied the initial petition, excluding the developed areas, did meet the expands the contiguity requirement. Inclusion of the developed areas is Since the original petition did contiguity far beyond what required. include the entire section, 1/6 of the entire section was not required, not but only 1/6 of the undeveloped area --otherwise it would not have met the requirements and could not have been submitted. Summarized the reasons for recommending approval of the annexation: 1) it urban development met the contiguity requirement; 2) it is in an area where that, there is a community of interest in the area is anticipated, and given the development that does occur fits with the city in terms of of assuring services and facilities. Mooney: Asked for the contiguity to be pointed out. Kaplan: Stated that without the inclusion of the developed areas, the undeveloped in two rather than one, area would have had to have been annexed parcels, the requirements, short of the Werner Annexation. in order to meet contiguity Pointed out that the developed area was included at the city's request. were Stated the concessions the city was willing to grant for this annexation the city inviting its country cousins to come for a exceptional, much like and stay permanently. Said the petitioners did not care whether or the visit not the developed areas were annexed. Stated that their proximity to the annexation was asking city had been giving them benefits for years, and taxes to pay for the benefits they had them to start paying the property been getting for years. Haase: Asked Dr. Gorman what he had in mind for preliminary work and study. Replied, streets, which need to be widened; the railroad, which can hamper Gorman: emergency services; and the insufficiency of security services. Eckman: Asked what the urgency for this annexation is. Smith: Replied the obligation is with the county --an agreement that the city will within the Urban Growth Area pursue forcible annexation of developed areas become eligible for annexation. An alternative is to wait until when they the area is two-thirds surrounded by the city and then pursue an over-all forced annexation. Eckman: Asked if the county would be offended if the city did not pursue annexation now, but waited until a few years later. Smith: - Stated he could not speak for the county. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 18 Eckman: Asked if the city would not be in a better position to make a less generous agreement later. Smith: Responded that the city is in a position to give or take as much or as little as it likes at any time. Stated that the proposed annexation ordi- nance is not in the form ofanagreement with landowners, but is a unilateral commitment to certain items. Whether the city would pursue the same commit- ments later on, said he did not know --it would have to re-evaluated. Ross: Stated that forcing annexation on these people who did not want it, with the possibility that the undeveloped land could sit vacant indefinitely, was jumping the gun. Expressed difficulty in seeing the necessity of annexing the properties at this time. Jerry Nix: Stated he is one of the principal landowners requesting the annexation. Said they felt the value of their property would increase as a result of being in the city; otherwise, they would just as soon stay in the county as the county would not require the improvement of streets or parkland fees. Kaplan: Said the petitioners are indifferent as to whether the developed areas annex or not. Suggested that as city residents they would have a greater voice in determining the surrounding development. Dr. Gorman: Stated that if it made no difference, why don't they annex their own land, and not tell the residents of the developed areas they have to be annexed. Reiterated the necessity for the improvement of roads first, as well as sewers and utilities. Wells: Stated that developers would have to improve the streets when they develop the land. Haase: Read from the City Council agenda of February 19, Resolution 80-18, "author- izing the city to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County, Colorado, for the purpose of creating the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and providing for coordinated planning and development activities within the Fort Collins area." Continued, "Whereas the county and the city have agreed to the following policies: No. 4, that the county would approve only urban level development within the Urban Growth Area, and that said development would conform to all city development standards." Asked what the status quo of acceptance and approval of this resolution, which definitely impacts on development here, is. Smith: Replied there are a couple of ways of evaluating this property with respect to that clause and others in the agreement. The status of the agreement is that it will go back to Council March 4; there's a public hearing being held by the County Commissioners to consider formal adoption of the agreement on March 27. The policy which most affects the proposed annexation is one which indicates that the county will not rezone any property which is eligible for annexation, therefore those properties will be processed for development in the city. Mooney: Asked if the Urban Growth Area boundary had been approved by the county. Smith: Repeated it was scheduled for adoption on March 27, following a series of work sessions which have occurred over the last several months. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 19 Haase: Asked if it were true, then, that if Mr. Nix developed his property, it would have to be developed to city standards whether or not it were annexed. Smith: Replied that was correct. Nix: Stated he did not think that would apply as their zoning had been approved by the county before the Urban Growth Area Plan had been adopted.. Deagle: Replied that would not be the case as the time at which detrimental reliance is assumed to occur is at the time of building permit issuance, a policy fairly uniform throughout the country. Audience: Asked if the developer would have to improve the entire street or only the part adjacent to their development. Smith: Replied the developer would only have to improve the streets adjacent to his property. Said the city would participate with an improvement district in improving the remainder and that there would be property owner partici- pation in that improvement. Stated the general policy is that those who have frontage participate in the costs, but that it is possible that the expense could be spread throughout the subdivision. Noted nothing had been definitely decided. Van Driel: Stated the need for improvement of the streets is caused by the new develop- ment, and said the question is whether the residents will benefit from the improvement and should therefore share in the costs. Smith: Pointed out that that question is raised with every improvement district, and that the city's position has been that the residents do benefit from the street construction, and are therefore assessed for the costs. Wells: Pointed out that the area would eventually be part of the city whether annexed or not, and that city planning provided a great many benefits in terms of open space, traffic flow, access, and bike trails. Stated the in that the residents of the city had made considerable concessions order developed areas be able to continue their present lifestyles. Said the area would be impacted, and that the purpose of planning is to minimize the impact. Stated the only way to make the transition from a rural area to one surrounded by urban development is to have it done under one juris- diction. Asked for a motion. Gorman: Asked if the Board could guarantee in writing some of the things that have made their lifestyle what it is. Wells: Asked what guarantees anyone has about their surroundings, and contended that the Board was trying to give people some guarantees. Gorman: Asked in what form the guarantees would be. Wells: Replied that the zoning law requires development to have input from the surrounding residents, and gives some guarantees about the quality of development, and that that is better than what they have now, which is no guarantees at all. Audience: Expressed concern about the adequacy of police and fire protection. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 20 Eckman: Stated the people did not want the city, and the city did not really need them. Expressed the opinion that, as these lots will be in a real minority, the owners will reap a real windfall in years to come, and expressed frustration with the anger of the owners toward the city as it will be the growth of the city which will make the lots valuable. Stated the city is conceding too much: the flat rate water fee is troubling as the large lots may require considerable water; the lack of a parkland fee; and this area is not presently ripe for annexation. Moved recommendation for denial of the annexation, with the suggestion that the petitioners pursue annexation of the undeveloped areas. Van Driel: Second. Ross: Asked if there would be any problem with providing city services to the undeveloped areas --if the lines would have to cross Imperial Estates. Smith: Replied, no. Kaplan: Asked if the motion could include a recommendation that the Council approve the original petition for annexation of the undeveloped areas so that the petitioners would not be penalized in terms of time. Eckman: Stated he was agreeable to including that in his motion if it were acceptable to staff. Smith: Stated he did not know for sure if that could be done, but that they could draw up another ordinance. Said the issue was to make sure that it met all the statutory requirements. Wells: Asked if it was the intent of Eckman's motion that the annexation of the undeveloped portion be pursued without delay. Eckman: Replied that was his intent. Deagle: Stated that as a new ordinance would be in the same area, that if the Board was satisfied they had heard all the issues, he did not see anything wrong with Eckman's recommendation that Council approve annexation only of the undeveloped area. Eckman: Asked if findings regarding the contiguity would have to be made. Deagle: Replied specific findings are not necessary, but the Board should have the specific boundaries in mind of the area under consideration, and if the Board feels it has enough information concerning its possibilities for development, then it could proceed. Ross: Stated he would be comfortable with it if there were documents certifying the 1/6 contiguity, but there were not. Smith: Replied that two ordinances could be presented to Council, one as it stands, and one for the undeveloped area, with the Board's recommendations, on April 1. Van Driel: Stated it appeared that only the east half of the section which is undeveloped would meet the requirement. P & Z Minutes February 25, 1980 Page 21 Kaplan: Stated that the Werner Annexation is expected to be approved on March 4 and for the entire undeveloped area. it would then provide sufficient contiguity Stated that there had been a foul-up and the Werner Annexation would not Deagle: come up for second hearing until April 1. Smith: Said that would be no real problem; that this one could go to Council the second meeting in April. Vote: Haase: yes; Wells: yes, it is important to annex the undeveloped portion, be in a much poorer position down but the people in the developed area may the request that staff begin to work with PVREA, the road; Ross: yes, with and with the comment that the city was willing to give away too much in the way of concessions, and that the memorandum of understanding could cause in Van Driel: yes, stating that the problems with changes administration; to fly in the face of the slow -growth question city -county agreement seems the memorandum of understanding does not include all of the and noting that items in the packet, such as the agreement on water and electric service. Motion carried, 5 - 0. 9. #218-79A Horsetooth - Harmony West Zoning Description: A proposal to zone Section #34 to the RLP - Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Various property owners, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 South Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Moved recommendation to Council to approve RLP zoning for the undeveloped Ross: potion of Section 34. Haase: Second. Smith: Asked for a condition that the RLP be developed as a P.U.D. Ross and Haase: Accepted the addition of the condition. Vote: Motion approved, 5 - 0. Wells: Adjourned meeting at approximately 11:30 p.m.