Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH TAFT HILL 7TH ANNEXATION & ZONING - 38-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 19 annexation because if the residents are that unhappy, then maybe it is not a good idea. Just remember every time you go into a city park, just remember who's parks those are. The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Meyer voting in the negative. Project: Project Description: Recommendation: Caribou Apartments, Project Developme Plan, #18-02A i Request for a 193 unit multi -family complex located along the west side of Timberline Road and south of Caribou Drive. The project is located on 10.8 acres of land and will yield a gross density of 17.8 units/acre. The property is zoned E, Employment. Approval X monv. Written This item was appealed to City Cou be obtained at the Current Planning Other Business: There was no The meetin iness. adjourned at 12:30 a.m. rtm Approved by the Board on April 10, 2003. verbatim transcript is attached or can Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 18 The city is not the water provider in this area, Fort Collins Loveland Water District is, so water is not an issue for this annexation. In the staff report there is a list of services that are provided by various entities before and after annexation. Deputy City Attorney spoke about the extension of Moore Lane. He would have concerns about the city entering into any kind of agreement, where it agrees not to build a road, or to take a road out, or take out amenities or anything that has to do with traffic and safety. He would be fearful that that would be contracting away the :. city's police power. Member Bernth moved to recommend approval to City Council the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation, #38-02. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Berth made the motion to recommend approval of the enclave annexation. He knew it would be the most unpopular position in the room, especially when you have 100 people that are totally against it. Some part of him says why would you even do it, but the practical part of him says that there is an enclave that is completely surrounded by the city. It is impractical in future to have enclaves like this throughout the city. The state legislature felt strong enough to legislate a mechanism that would involuntarily do this. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion because he is a strong believer in our process. The state legislature is the authority. If they say we have an enclave, and we need to follow this process. In looking at the table, he sees a lot of amenities that the residents are enjoying in the city and felt that everyone should be pitching in for taxes. He knows that this is very unpopular, but this is what we need to do. Member Carpenter did agree that it was impractical to have County enclaves in the city that are not the city. Member Meyer commented that she heard a lot of the residents talk about development and not wanting it. The fact that they are in the County, does not protect them from developers. Be aware that if they can find your land, they can build on it. So whether you are in the city or the County, you can be developed. It just depends on who's rules you want to follow. With that said, as opposed as the residents are to this annexation, she does not know why we would want them. As opposed as you are, there is no reason to be as unhappy as they are over the whole thing. The city is doing this because the law say we will do this. There is not a lot of choice, and we have to go througgh the process. The process has been painful from the public meeting on October 71 up until tonight. She would not be voting for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 17 required. People are very content with their service levels in the County. There were concerns with safety if the Master Plan was developed. There were also concerns with destruction of the wetland property up near the Moore Lane extension, which is part of the Master Plan. He noted that there were many people at the meeting and there was no one there in support of the annexation. Ted Hall, 2138 Moffett Drive wanted to stipulate that the only reason this meeting is going on tonight is because they are surrounded, per se, by state statute because of the open lands and the park that was bought to the west of their subdivision. It is going to maintain a park and open lands so that surrounded them and now they can be brought into the city. They have heard talk about roads being upgraded when there is development. In their subdivision, there is only one undeveloped plot, so there will be no road upgrades on his street. He will not get sidewalks or sewer, he will not get anything. He will have to pay city taxes on the high dollar items he buys. He asked that his area not be brought into the city. Public Input Closed Director Gloss addressed the public comment. He stated that there were a lot of concerns expressly given about sewer service. He wanted to explain the septic systems if not something that the city regulates. The County regulates those and they have made it clear that they will allow septic systems to continue until such time as they fail. If they do fail, if they have enough capacity on their property to put in another system, it is likely that they can continue to do so and operate with a septic system. The exception to that is if the property is located within 400 feet of a city sewer main. At that point, they would have to extend that service to their property. That could be a substantial cost to a property owner if they are within that area. That would not apply to quite a few properties within the annexation area. There are mains running in South Taft Hill Road and the service is largely to the east. Unless there is a developer that would come in and put in a system, it is pretty unlikely that the city could go in and force them to build the sewer structure to support the neighborhood. With respect to streets, we do an inspection when an annexation occurs and it they don't meet the city standard, then we don't maintain them except for basic maintenance as he mentioned earlier. The city will not force a neighborhood to construct at their expense a street to bring it up to standard. We would just maintain it at its current level. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 16 has for improvements for this annexation. He asked that that the Board recommend denial of the annexation. Linda Tipton, 2411 West Drake Road stated that she was the person who initiated at the neighborhood meeting, for people to put a mark by their name if they were in favor of this annexation. No one said anything. She asked the Board to open their minds and ask what was wrong with the way things are. Why do they have to develop every inch of the city of Fort Collins? You have a group of people coming before you saying that they love Fort Collins as they have lived in it, in the County, they appreciate the open spaces, what is wrong with having people who want to continue this lifestyle. Why do they have to be annexed into the city when there really is no benefit? Audrey Horton, 2407 West Drake wanted to know whom the people are that made the request to annex. Is it the people who live in the 220 acres? Was anyone there who requested to be annexed, or is it the city? Does this affect anyone who does not live in the 220-acre space? Is it that nobody else really cares or that there is no reason for them to have an interest in whether they annex this or not. If it is just the people who live there, it is a pretty negative response. She asked at the last meeting what were five benefits for the city to annex the property, and she did not get any answer. She also asked what were five benefits that the property owners would have by annexing into the city. None of the benefits would be in sewer, water, electricity, roads, streetlights or taxes. There is no benefit for the people who live there to want to do this annexation. Neal Carson, 2601 McKeag Drive spoke to the board about his concerns. He does have many, but would not want to be repetitive. One concern that has not been raised and that is because they live on Moore Lane on the east side as it flows southward into the cul-de-sac. There are a great number of families and dogs on leashes that use that portion of Moore Lane to come from Quail Hollow, Fox Creek Subdivision, and the Meadows at Fox Creek Subdivision who use that as an access to Spring Creek and the trail. He could just envision, god forbid that Moore Lane goes through and connect on the other side, the problems that would exist with safety. Large groups of families anytime of the day and weekends use the trail. He is mostly concerned that the concept that the city is even thinking about extending Moore Lane southward past Spring Creek. Rodney Schmitz, 3315 Millford Lane stated that at the neighborhood meeting that the city sponsored residents all vocalized their opposition to this annexation. Many of the things that were discussed that created everyone's opposition was the amount of infrastructure upgrades that would be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 15 meetings that would affect Moore Lane, and let them know about the status of their request. Scott Krenning, 2218 Primrose Drive asked that in the State Statutes that states within three years you may annex into the city. There are stipulations for the city if you annex prior to that three years, what are those stipulations and how did that affect the chosen date to wait for three years. Mr. Krenning stated that the city requirements to bring services up to city standards will have a significant financial impact to many of the residences in place. Some of these may be triggered by development, which is sure to happen whether this annexation takes place or not. These requirements will not be placed on existing homes in the County, where they will be placed upon existing homes if this property is annexed. Numerous homes could have up to $10,000 in costs just to bring their sewer up to code if this property is annexed. Because of these requirements, significant financial burden could be placed on some of these homeowners. Ultimately City Council will make the decision and representatives of people who had no vote as to who they are. As County residents they could not vote for City Council, but City Council will decide whether or not they become part of the city. Robert Cooke, 2238 Moffett Drive asked if their septic system fails, would they get a choice as to repairing it, or would they have to go onto a sewer line. He felt they should know what the expenses are going to be and what the chance of a sewer line being put in in the next four to five years will be. Rob Haas, 1994 Kinnison Drive stated that unless he is missing something, this is a clear case of "we don't want you" and "you don't want us." It boils down to they have more regulation in the city that they do if they were in the County. Potentially, there is some control over if a septic tank fails, but if he was in a situation that he had to pay $15,000 to connect to a sewer or dodge city regulations to fix his septic tank, he would not hesitate to dodge city regulations. The stormwater utility fee they would consider a stormwater tax. The stormwater utility fee will not help them. They would also be paying sales and use tax on big ticket items and it is just extra money they have to spend that they are not spending now and they are getting nothing in return. Eventually the city will be in a position to do something about the dirt roads. There are also a couple of bridges in the area that are being annexed and neither of those bridges are even close to being safe for pedestrians, and they are both one car bridges. There is no compelling reason for the city to take on this additional risk and there are no immediate funds that the city Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 14 remaining item would be the city stormwater fees that would be assigned to properties in the area. If you add all the costs up, the revenue is just under $42,000 per year (estimated). When you go to the cost side to the city, the biggest individual cost, is the cost to provide additional police service. That would be an additional $30,000 of additional manpower to bring it up to our city service standard. The other cost to the city would be the street maintenance. When looking at the numbers, it is not a great advantage to the city and is not a big money making venture for the city to do the annexation. In the long term the city may derive quite a bit more revenue as areas infill and redevelop. It is hard to say at what pace that would occur. Obviously, based on the zoning, the LMN parcels have a lot greater development potential, but the areas that are Urban Estate, we probably don't anticipate a lot of changes in the near future in those areas. Director Gloss summarized that this annexation does meet State Statutory Requirements and has followed the city's Land Use Code as far as the public process. Member Carpenter asked if there were any residents that won't meet the city requirements for animals and might be in a position to have to get rid of them. Director Gloss replied that he is not aware of any, but that is not to say that there aren't any out there. If you have an existing legal conforming situation in the County, you can continue that in the city unless if poses a health or safety issue. Public Input Philip Snow, 2625 McKeag Drive presented a letter from the Fox Creek Subdivision Board of Directors. The letter stated that regardless of the outcome of the proposed annexation, they oppose the connection of the two ends of Moore Lane. They ask that the Board ask City Council to stipulate that Moore Lane extension plan be removed from the South Taft Hill Annexation proposal. Their reasons for opposing the extension loop are, but not limited to Moore Lane connection does not seem to benefit anyone; McKeag Drive will become a through street for Quail Hollow; increased traffic on Moore and McKeag will be dangerous to children and use these streets to access schools. It will disturb an environmentally and sensitive wetland area. Because the road would be of minimal use to the community, this project would be a poor use of tax dollars that could be used for maintenance. To their knowledge, this extension is not desired or supported by anyone in the surrounding area. The road will travel through a flood zone and will be expensive to maintain. A committee has been formed to organize opposition to this proposal, please contact them with any upcoming Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 13 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. Director Gloss gave a visual presentation of the boundaries and existing conditions of the annexation area. Director Gloss discussed the neighborhood meeting and the concern with Moore Lane. Moore Lane is on the west side of the annexation area. Moore Lane is in the city on the north end and terminates in a cul-de-sac. On the south end it runs through the annexation area and it terminates at a vacated public right-of-way. That area extends further on and you have a disconnection where Moore Lane, to connect together, would have to cross Spring Creek. It is an elaborate project that the city has calculated that cost would be substantial. There were no immediate plans to construct such a project, nor funding to do so. Staff has made it clear to area residents that as such time in the future that development warrants and extension of the roadway that under city regulations that may very likely occur. There was a lot of opposition both by residents inside and outside of the annexation area. They want a commitment from the city to not make that extension go through and potentially have that as part of an annexation agreement that that occur. Director Gloss stated that the road conditions vary greatly. The streets do not meet city standards. The city will not be improving these road upon annexation. The city will acknowledge that the roads exist in this condition and the city will do basic maintenance of the roadways, snow removal and patching. The road would not be reconstructed at the city's expense and there maybe a situation in the future where property owners could get together and create a special improvement district. Staff does anticipate as development occurs that the streets will be improved at the cost of the developer. West Swallow, which is on the east side of the annexation area, and is shown on the city's Master Street Plan as connecting at some point in the future. That would entail extending West Swallow from the east edge of the annexation area for a quarter of a mile through to South Taft Hill Road. Staff would anticipate that would largely occur at the expense of developers, although street oversizing could potentially contribute to that. That would also be triggered by development. Director Gloss discussed the costs of annexation. The revenue the city would get from this area is relatively limited because it is predominately residential. The city would see a very slight revenue source and property tax. The difference is minor between the city and County. Over the entire 220 acres, the city would only see about $6,000 additional in property tax revenue. Most of the additional tax money for this area would go to Poudre Fire Authority. We would derive some sales and use tax. If you live in this area and you go out and buy large ticket items, you would now pay city sales tax, whereas now you don't. The other Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 12 Planner Olt replied that is being discussed. This was the first he kn about the s d unit and based on the parking code requirement fora amity dwelling that wo require 1.5 spaces for each one bedroom unit 1.75 spaces for each two be unit. Discussion was held rega?diQQ continuing t ' item to answer all the questions regarding parking and the seco-hdunit i e basement. Member Gavaldon moved to ontinue Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development PI , #35-00 to the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearin irecting staff to work With, -the applicant on the issue of the seco residence in the single family home and also address the parking is es. Memmo Bernth seconded the motion. he a motion was approved 5-0. Project: South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation, #38-02 Project Description: Annexation and zoning of a County enclave that is completely surrounded by properties that have been annexed into the City. The request area is composed of approximately 220.22 acres of privately and publicly owned property generally located south of West Drake Road, lying to the west and east of South Taft Hill Road, and including the South Taft Hill Road right-of-way. The recommended zoning is a combination of the UE, Urban Estate and the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (September 5tn only), 2, 3, 4 and 5. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Strauss Lakes Development Annexation & Zoning, # 47-02 Description: Request to annex approximately 17. acres of privately owned property located on the northeast corner o Horsetooth Road and Ziegler ad. The requested zoning is LM , Low Density Mixed Use Neigh rhood. Recommendatioh Approval Troy Jones, City Planner ga the staff presentation Planner Jones showed an aerial photograph of the propertyand the surroun ng uses. The site was recommended to be zoned Low Density Mixed se Neighborhood and that is consistent with what the Structure P n show . Public Input John Trowbridge, lives in the Stone ge Town omes which is adjacent to this property. Mr. Trowbridge was co cerned that thi zoning would permit a trailer park. They were interested in a type of use, typeof buildings, density and commercial uses. They wer interested in knowing iffy environmental impact statement has been done He was mostly interested in at the use would be. Planner Jones respo ded that from a zoning standpoint, LM 's one of our residential zone di ricts, which are low density and which do alfor mobile home communities as permitted use. It is not to say that this will beco e a mobile home park by ny means, that is just one of the long list of permitte ses that is allowed wit n that zone district. Given the topography, he would be ve surprise if it would be physically possible to put mobile homes on this sit The densi that is permitted within the LMN zone district is between 5 and 8 dwe ng uni per acre. At the annexation stage we do not get into what is being p posed and we don't get to the environmental analysis. An annexation is Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone:(H) 484-2034 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Bernth, Meyer, Torgerson, Gavaldon. Members Colton and Craig were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, McWilliams, Barkeen, Moore, Sanford, Schlueter, Dodge, Stringer and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Meyer nominated Member Torgerson for Chairperson. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Carpenter nominated Member Gavaldon for Vice Chair. The motion was approved 5-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the September 5, October 17 (Continued), and November 4, (Continued), 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes. 2. Resolution PZ03-01 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ03-02 — Easement Vacation. 4. #55-02 Streamside Annexation and Zoning. 5. #54-02 Peterson Annexation and Zoning. 6. #47-02 Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #35-00 Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development Plan. 8. #38-02 South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation and Zoning. 9. #18-02 Caribou Apartments — Project Development Plan. John Trowbridge, citizen pulled Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning for discussion.