Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/21/2000 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE IRISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-C DATE: November 21, 2000 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM • Troy W. Jones SUBJECT :S : Items Relating to the Irish Elementary School First Annexation and Zoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of the Resolution and Ordinances on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 2000-138 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Irish Elementary School First Annexation. 40 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2000, Annexing Property Known as the Irish Elementary School First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2000, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Irish Elementary School First Annexation. APPLICANT: Ron Daggett Poudre School District 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNERS: Latimer County BACKGROUND: This is the first phase of a two-phase sequential annexation for the Irish Elementary School. The Irish Elementary First Annexation consists of approximately 0.5 acres of land within the Vine Drive right-of-way. This application, together with the Irish Elementary School Second Annexation, represents as total of approximately 14.2 acres of land and 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. This is a 100% Voluntary Annexation. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, contained in the DATE: November 21, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-C Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will annex property within the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS). The CRS requires 1/6 of the property to be contiguous with the existing City limits. As proposed, 290.00 feet of approximately 1740.00 feet of the total property boundary is contiguous to the existing City limits. This just meets the minimum 290.00 feet required to achieve 1/6 contiguity. This contiguity occurs through a common boundary with the Vine-LaPorte-Taft 2nd Annexation (September 1982). The surrounding zoning and land uses as follows: N: FA - Farming District in Larimer County — Shirley Height Subdivision, large lot single family rural development, S: LMN — Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District in the city — Poudre Plains development, North Briarwood Road, Plains Court, FA- Farming District in Latimer County—large lot single family rural development, E: FA- Farming District in Latimer County—Vine Drive right-of-way, W: FA -Farming District in Latimer County—Vine Drive right-of-way. ZONING AND ANALYSIS: The property is currently Farming (FA) District in Larimer County. The City's adopted Structure Plan, a part of City Plan, designates the site as Low Density, Mixed-Use Residential. The requested zoning designation of LMN is consistent with the Structure Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its meeting on September 7, 2000. At that meeting, the Board recommended, by a vote of 5-2, approval of the Irish Elementary School First Annexation with a zoning designation of Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN). RESOLUTION 2000-138 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE IRISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRST ANNEXATION WHEREAS,annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of Fort Collins for property to be known as the Irish Elementary School First Annexation; and WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law, the Council has held a hearing on said annexation. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 2. That the Council hereby finds that there is at least one-sixth(1/6) contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future;and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City. Section 3. That the Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and conditions to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 4. That the Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act. Section 5. That the Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the Irish Elementary School First Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 21st day of November, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: • City Clerk • ORDINANCE NO. 179, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE HUSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS,Resolution 2000-121,finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS,the Council does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the following described property, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE NORTHEASTI/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, WHICH, CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 AS BEARING N89`4030"W AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE VINE-LAPORTE-TAFT 2ND ANNEXATION, WHICH BEARS N89°4030"W 771.95 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9, AND RUN THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID REPLAT OF POUDRE PLAINS, N89°4030"W 260.00 FEET; THENCE S00°1330"W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST VINE DRIVE;THENCE N86°42 40"W 580.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE N88°1640"E 839.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST VINE DRIVE; THENCE S00*1330"W 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.4885 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Irish Elementary School First Annexation. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains,sewer lines,gas mains,electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 3. That the City hereby consents,pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6),C.R.S.,to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of November, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of December, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of December, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. 180, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE HUSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS,in accordance with the foregoing,the Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that the said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by including the property known as the Irish Elementary School First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,Colorado,in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood(LMN)Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer,State of Colorado, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE NORTHEASTIA OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, WHICH, CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 AS BEARING N89°4030"W AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE VINE-LAPORTE-TAFT 2ND ANNEXATION, WHICH BEARS N89°4030"W 771.95 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9, AND RUN THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID REPLAT OF POUDRE PLAINS, N89'4030"W 260.00 FEET; THENCE S00*1330"W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST VINE DRIVE;THENCE N86°42'40"W 580.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE N88°1640"E 839.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST VINE DRIVE; THENCE S00'1330"W 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.4885 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. • Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,changed and amended by showing that the above-described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of November, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of December, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of December, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk IRISH FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SMA4TE IN THE NORTHEAST 114 OF S£C71ON 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF 774E SIXTH P.M., COUNTY OFLARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO �00 .,.. /� /° ' aoaa�Irlw' x.w a.asirar v.r a.a. wor fw.aw r.w I a.r•a•m fear I aII.11'gY ' war I rarrrfoa ap 1 rya 00 r wa...rrr.a» Irw•.o•.Warr I scrnlvr I �mrwrr a.ara+.isr r>aJ 1I Harr I I ri, I pYllIIal6 saaoarloaw-fIYMM I I I� mu apuwrluam-r,mm Ir I I Ia�4�r Ma4aMa aOVMv Rawm-fnao nw LEG41. DESCRIPOW I aOr'r I mmom RE .- I I I I APPROVED: rri� r�i��oY�ir Yr4rMhaa OYr,Yr,wrYW rrraa�sra aY Iar•arla rv.r_ir Kw_. warty w Y/aY/aI AIO Ar elO APPROVED: wCINIlY1{IP rvf-r�rpo Y prYY yYr�a�wNrOIANOOIYrq•rM Oaa OY.iaaw.al��arar Ia�1Y %Ygb.rrM��YaYYYI�Y�aI.I I��A4�L�r SRE STEWART 8 ASSOCIATES •smrypa...,r,....r�o.�a.a ra.r•r�w memo®rams r `,` y apra r.+�r.w a..,•w w.,,• .r,..r.pr. � _ Yr wwLlwer Mr w�w�4laWwwM wHwr Iuamaawl4 mn mua mum m�p�Ww-m, I .e.rMP.MYn YY rYnrM.M tl.w M„n Na iiF1 Irldr Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 2000August 17, 6:30 [ Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: H 484-2034 Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Dodge, McCallum, Stringer, Jones, Bracke, 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 April 20, May 4, and July 20, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 3. Resolution PZOO-24 Easement Vacation 4. #13-82CG *Centre for Advanced Technology, Parcel U, 11th Filing, Preliminary and Final PUD 5. #10-00 Irish Elementary School, 1gt Annexation & Zoning 6. #10-OOA Irish Elementary School, 2nd Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 7. #54-87AP The Lodge at Miramont— Preliminary PUD Member Craig pulled items 5 and 6 for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 2 of 10 Project: #10-00 Irish Elementary School, 15`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 15t 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 annexation. He noted the location of the site using site shots. Member Craig asked for clarification of the location of the first annexation on Vine. Troy Jones clarified where the contiguity was with the City for this annexation. Member Colton asked for clarification of the contiguity requirements concerning the surrounding neighborhood houses. Troy Jones responded that a road right-of-way can not classify a parcel as an enclave, it must be something more substantial. Some of the lots against the school could voluntarily annex, but they could not be forced at this time. Ron Daggett, Poudre School District Representative, explained the reasoning behind the annexation request. He sited better police protection and use of City power resources. Member Gavaldon asked for information concerning cost estimates of police services for the school, vandalism reports, costs for street maintenance and utility savings by annexing into the City. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 3 of 10 Troy Jones stated that he did not have that information available for the Board. Ron Daggett responded that the savings for utilities were approximately three to five thousand dollars per year. Troy Jones explained the process for maintaining newly annexed land. Mark McCallum, Engineering Department, explained that the City would not take over the maintenance of that street until it was brought up to City standards. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, stated that the County currently maintained the streets in the annexation and he did not see any reason why that would change at this point. The homeowners in the area would be responsible to upgrade the roads to City standards. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Craig asked what the City cost would be to get the City utilities out to the annexation. Ron Daggett responded that the only utility that they would be using from the City would be electricity. Member Craig had concerns about it being a flagpole annexation with no close proximity of services to tap into. Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office, was not sure of the process, but the City had in the passed purchased the existing lines at a discounted rate and then used them for the new service. Troy Jones added that the annex parcel would pay 10%of the cost to switch over the services per year. Member Gavaidon moved to continue the recommendation concerning the annexation and zonings at Irish Elementary School. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Bernth felt if the savings were substantial for the school district, he was in . support of that. He also agreed that the City police could provide better service for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 4 of 10 school. He felt that the project could be conditioned with the absorption of the cost for the new services, but he would not support continuing the project. Member Colton stated he would be supporting the motion because he wanted to hear the information concerning cost before making a decision. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Bernth and Torgerson voting in the negative. Project: #54-87AP The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D. Project Description: This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 108 multi- family dwellings on 7.7 acres. There would be nine residential buildings and one office/community building. The P.U.D. includes a combination of garages attached to the buildings, detached garages and surface parking. The buildings are three-stories in height (39 feet at the ridgeline) with the ends of the buildings dropping to two-stories and one-story. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Lemay Avenue and Boardwalk Drive and zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave a presentation describing the project and he used site shots for clarification. He explained the slides in the presentation concerning the LDGS aspect of the review. Mike Sollenberger, applicant, described the unique project and the proximity to the services in the area. He introduced Frank Vaught. Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, gave a presentation including the Oak Cottonwood ODP. He described the densities for the project and how he did not feel that the proposed development had the most density in the area. He felt they had adjusted the project to address the issues expressed by staff and the neighbors. The detention pond became 2 acres in size as an added amenity for the project. They adjusted the building placement to open up more view corridors to the mountains. He described the setback of the buildings from Lemay and the added streetscapes within the development. He showed 3-D renderings of what the 'lodge-type" buildings would look like. He showed estimated views of the development from the street. They felt that the LDGS submittal best fit the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 5 of 10 Member Craig asked about the perimeter fence. Frank Vaught responded that it was placed in front of the pond as a safety measure. He also felt the fence was necessary on the side of the park to protect the development from pedestrians and vehicles from entering the development that do not live there. It would be a lower wrought-iron fence with pillars at the entrances. Member Craig asked if there would be any fill dirt needed for the development. Frank Vaught felt that the development had a close balance of cut and fill dirt and would possibly have to truck out a few dump truck loads. This development would not be building up the base of the foundations to make the buildings seem higher. Member Gavaldon asked why the development was completely enclosed by the fence. Frank Vaught responded that due to the liability of the homeowner's association and the fact that it was a private development, he felt it was best to protect the interests of the association and the public. Member Carpenter asked if there were many children anticipated to be living in the development. Frank Vaught stated that they could not restrict children from being in the development, and he felt it was actually a nice place for young families. The anticipated impact of new children on the school was only 21 students. Public Comment: Al Hauck, 1100 White Elk Court, reviewed his letter of concern that was submitted as a response to the staff report. He outlined the neighborhood concerns with the proposal. He expressed concerns with violations of the Master Plan, incorrect density calculations and lack of neighborhood compatibility. He described previous versions of the master plan for the area. Unfortunately, this infill parcel was the last left to develop at the higher density, which would contribute to over-development. He discussed Density Chart H of the LDGS and what he felt to be incorrect. He argued the measurements to neighborhood services as being ambiguous. He felt the largest source of concern was with the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He did not feel that the development maintained the character of the existing neighborhood. He had concerns about the traffic impacts. He referred to the findings of fact with which the neighborhood group disagreed. John Busby, 1119 White Oak Court, summarized the efforts of involving the community and the surrounding homeowner's associations with the information concerning the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 6 of 10 Laurie Pesetto, neighboring resident, reviewed a paragraph from an affected property owner letter sent to the residents adjacent to the project. She discussed the traffic problems that the neighborhood would incur with the addition of another dense project. Carole Tuttle, 1130 Live Oak Court, expressed her support of the comments made by AI Hauck. Fred Tuttle, 1130 live Oak Court, expressed his support of the comments and recommendations made by Al Hauck. Discussion: Frank Vaught gave a short rebuttal explaining that the original ODP listed more multi- family units than would exist with the proposed project included. He stated that the project had changed after the neighborhood meetings and after comments from staff. He reflected that the applicant had no problem setting a benchmark from which to measure the height of the building to discourage the burming of the land underneath the buildings. There was no objection from the traffic operations staff with the proposed plan. He addressed the density concerns. John Busby made the comment that the neighborhood was not against the project, but against how many units were included in the project. He felt the neighbors were looking for compromise in the size of the buildings and number of units within the development. Member Craig asked for a review of the old ODP and the densities associated with it. Ted Shepard reviewed the Oak/Cottonwood ODP as listed in the staff report. He described some of the changes to the ODP from 1992 to the present. Member Torgerson asked Al Hauck how he felt the staff was incorrect. Al Hauck addressed the concern of the placement of the density throughout the development. Member Carpenter expressed her concern about the intersection at Boardwalk and Lemay. She asked if there were any plans to improve that intersection. Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations, stated that the intersection was planned to be signalized next Spring, approximately April of 2001. Member Gavaldon asked what the service level would be with the new signal. Eric Bracke responded that it would function at Level B. The intersection was well below the maximum counts. The proposed project would not add significant numbers of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 7 of 10 traffic to the neighborhood. It was developing out as it had been planned. The City did provide a crossing guard at that intersection. Member Craig asked if it was usual to have a project with such densities have only one way in and out. Eric Bracke stated that the project originally came in with a curb cut on Lemay. He had asked that it be removed due to complications it would cause on the arterial. He showed on the plan how the intersection would function. He did not feel that removing a few of the parking spaces on Boardwalk would effect the parking situation for the park. Member Gavaldon asked about the process of dealing with issues surrounding the fence on this site. He asked if it should it be addressed at preliminary or final. Ted Shepard responded that the Board could give advisory comments of what information would be needed for the final. Member Gavaldon asked to see alternatives for completely surrounding the development with a fence. Member Bernth asked Al Hauck if there was enough notice for the neighborhood . meetings or if he still had a concern. Al Hauck stated that the second and third meetings had a larger notification area, so he did not continue to have a concern. Member Bernth asked if property values decreasing in the surrounding neighborhoods was still a concern. Al Hauck stated that concern was still being expressed to him by some of the neighbors. Member Bernth asked why some of the neighbors wrote in their letters that they thought the site was going to be a continuation of the park. Al Hauck stated that he had not seen all of the neighbor's letters, but he assumed that people saw the site as one farmer's field, so they believed the site would be one park even though it was two separate parcels. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Hauck how the measurements were taken to find the distance to the surrounding services. Al Hauck responded that they were unsure how to take the measurements, so staff told them it was by walking or biking, but they later found out the measurement were to be • taken as the crow flies. He felt that was part of the confusion to the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 8 of 10 Density chart. They were unsure if full credit or partial credit would be given depending on the distance. Ted Shepard gave a clarification of the measurements and how they were interpreted. Member Craig asked how close the Collinwood Gym was to the development. She wanted to compare the heights of the buildings. Ted Shepard reviewed a site shot to demonstrate how close the next building was to the proposed development. Member Craig asked what the vacant parcel was to the south. Ted Shepard stated that there was an existing structure on that parcel, so it would not add to the density of the neighborhood. Member Craig asked why the project wouldn't work with the 88 units. Ted Shepard responded that the first point chart submitted by the applicant was not accurate. The applicant made a separate decision to raise the units from 88 to 108 units. Frank Vaught added that they had made an incorrect first try on the point chart. He added that the roofline on the two-story building model only decreased about two feet from the three-story model. The current design allowed for the upper dwelling units to be tucked up underneath the roofline. Member Colton asked if there was any way to explore options of the two Lemay buildings being only two-story in height. Frank Vaught stated that they had already eliminated two buildings. The decrease in number of buildings gave them the flexibility to arrange the buildings so there would be better view corridors between the buildings. He did not feel that eliminating 8 units from the development and dropping the roofline only two feet would have a visual impact. Member Gavaldon asked for a description of what a two-story building would look like. Frank Vaught used a 3-13 representation of the proposed buildings to demonstrate what a two-story building might look like. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project as recommended by staff. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 9 of 10 Member Craig was concerned about the fence. She thought it looked like a gated community and was a problem for pedestrian connections. She felt that issue should be addressed in the preliminary review. Ted Shepard felt that there were sufficient pedestrian connections at the appropriate places for the connecting services. The sidewalks within the development were detached from the drive isles, so the pedestrian ways within the development functioned as sidewalks. Member Carpenter asked if there was a way to approve the project without the fence and have that addressed at final. Member Torgerson understood the reasoning for the fence along the park, but did not understand the reasoning for the other sides of the fence. Member Carpenter did not want to be doing the design work. She wanted to approve the project without the fence and have the applicant bring a new fence design at final. Member Gavaldon accepted that as a friendly amendment. Member Carpenter added a friendly amendment that the fence be removed from the preliminary approval, with the invitation to the applicant to bring a new design to final review addressing the issues of better pedestrian connections, more openings, and less of a gated-community feel. Member Colton asked how active the detention pond would be. Steve Human, TST Engineering, responded for the applicant that the pond would have water in it, but the tails would only be used during a major storm. Mike Sollenberger added that they will be using the pond as an amenity for the development, so they will be pumping it for water quality and using features like a rolling brook and waterfalls. The water would be 6 feet deep, with a 6 to 7 foot upward bank to hold the additional stormwater when necessary. Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Department, stated that they would not know the extent of the storm detention because it was only being reviewed as a preliminary. The stormwater issues would be finalized at final review. He felt a pedestrian connection over the detention area would require a major bridge structure that would be very costly. Member Torgerson appreciated the neighborhood input and that it was to the point and worked with the code. Member Craig expressed her understanding of the frustration that the citizens had, but she hoped that the development would have smaller families and less of an impact. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 10 of 10 Member Colton felt it was a better design in comparison with other multi-family projects that have developed. The motion was approved 6-0. Other Business: Greg Byrne described the Council's action concerning Amendment 24. He described the amendment and the definition of a "valid development application." It was determined by the Council that an ODP was the first development application within the process to be accepted as a "valid development application." He showed a preliminary map defining different committed or growth areas. The Board members asked questions about the amendment. Greg Byrne and Paul Eckman responded to the questions to the best of their knowledge. The Board requested more information concerning the amendment to be discussed at a later worksession. Member Colton wanted to review it and if there were any major concerns that he would forward that as a recommendation to adjust the resolution. Member Torgerson was glad that they did act on the situation as quickly as they did. He felt it would better serve the community. Member Carpenter agreed and felt it was a necessary step to take. She did want to clarify that what Council did was not in any way an endorsement of the amendment, just a response. She did feel that an ODP was the correct place to start. Member Colton asked if the City had been actively approaching developers to update or submit ODPs and wanted to ensure that the ODPs coming in were complete. Greg Byrne stated that the City was only responding to questions asked by the developers and added that he had given specific instructions that Cameron Gloss was to personally review each of the submittals. Member Colton asked if the Board could be informed with how many projects were going to be coming in over the next few weeks. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ITEM NO. 5 MEETING DATE 9-7-00 STAFF Troy Jones City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Irish Elementary School First Annexation & Zoning, File # 10-00 APPLICANT: Ron Daggett Poudre School District 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNERS: Larimer County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is the first phase of a two-phase sequential annexation for the Irish Elementary School. The Irish Elementary First Annexation consists of approximately 0.5 acres of land within the Vine Drive right-of-way. This application, together with the Irish Elementary School Second Annexation, will be a total of approximately 14.2 acres of land and 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: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be zoned Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins'as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The requested zoning of Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) is in conformance with the policies of City Plan and is consistent with the Structure Plan. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. PO.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)2-11-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Irish Elementary School First Annexation & Zoning, File # 10-00 September 7, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). 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 annex property within the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS). The CRS requires 1/6 of the property to be contiguous with the existing City limits. As proposed, 290.00 feet of approximately 1740.00 feet of the total property boundary is contiguous to the existing City limits. This just meets the minimum 290.00 feet required to achieve 1/6 contiguity. This contiguity occurs through a common boundary with the Vine-LaPorte-Taft 2nd Annexation (September 1982). The surrounding zoning and land uses as follows: N: FA - Farming District in Larimer County— Shirley Height Subdivision, large lot single family rural development, S: LMN — Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District in the city— Poudre Plains development, North Briarwood Road, Plains Court, FA - Farming District in Larimer County— large lot single family rural development, E: FA - Farming District in Larimer County— Vine Drive right-of-way, W: FA - Farming District in Larimer County—Vine Drive right-of-way. 2. Zonina and Analysis: The property is currently Farming (FA) District in Larimer County. The City's adopted Structure Plan, a part of City Plan, designates the site as Low Density, Mixed-Use Residential. The requested zoning designation of LMN is consistent with the Structure Plan. 3. City Council Hearings: City Council hearings on this proposed annexation and zoning will be held on the following dates: Initiating Resolution October 3, 2000 First Reading November 7, 2000 Second Reading November 21, 2000 . Irish Elementary School First Annexation & Zoning, File # 10-00 September 7, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The requested zoning of Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) is in conformance with the policies of City Plan and is consistent with the Structure Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Irish Elementary School First Annexation with a zoning designation of Low Density, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN). II OUT 1 OUT ± IRIS 0 �f LMN • ' i OUT ERT E AVE. LMN M OUT PSDADIAIN 7RL13QUORE VICINITY MAP 03/29/00 #10-00 and #10-OOA Irish Elementary School Annexation & Zoning Type 11 - PDP (LUC) 1"=600' Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 2 DRAFT 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 1st 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 DRAFT p� Page 3 /`ilj' 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 DEAF 1 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 Glass about the cost of police services in the urban growth area factored into the cost of annexation. Director Glass 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 Glass 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 Glass 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 Board Minutes AFT September 7, 2000 DR 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 6 L)RAFr 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 not, 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 + Page 7 1,& • 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 19t'. 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 spoke about growth in the State of Colorado and Amendment 24. She felt it was the responsibility of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board to hold fast to our local community goals. She asked that they not trade off hard earned achievements of urban service area plans, utility plans, or 20 year planning horizon in the urban growth area boundary, City Plan and neighborhood plans just to make a political statement. Fort Collins and Larimer County are far better served by this Board and City Council opposing Amendment 24, avoiding the stalling effects of litigation and rather maintain diligence and attention to the issues of regional cooperation and much needed affordable housing. Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of Resolution 2000 to the City Council of Fort Collins expressing its opposition to proposed Initiative 24 amending the Colorado Constitution by addition of a new article to be entitled Citizen Managed Growth. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2000 Page 2 DRAFT FT 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 1 st 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 Board 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 ®���a Page 4 r 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 Glass about the cost of police services in the urban growth area factored into the cost of annexation. Director Glass 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 Glass 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 Glass 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 Board Minutes DRAFT 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 D Page 6 RAFT 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 not, 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 Board Minutes September 7, 2000 A© /� �� 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 19"'. 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 spoke about growth in the State of Colorado and Amendment 24. She felt it was the responsibility of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board to hold fast to our local community goals. She asked that they not trade off hard earned achievements of urban service area plans, utility plans, or 20 year planning horizon in the urban growth area boundary, City Plan and neighborhood plans just to make a political statement. Fort Collins and Larimer County are far better served by this Board and City Council opposing Amendment 24, avoiding the stalling effects of litigation and rather maintain diligence and attention to the issues of regional cooperation and much needed affordable housing. Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of Resolution 2000 to the City Council of Fort Collins expressing its opposition to proposed Initiative 24 amending the Colorado Constitution by addition of a new article to be entitled Citizen Managed Growth. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. •