Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH TAFT HILL 7TH ANNEXATION & ZONING - 38-02 - DECISION - MEMO / P & Z BOARDFebruary 18, 2003 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 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. Board Comments 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 through the process. The process has been painful from the public meeting on October 71h up until tonight. She would not be voting for the 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. February 18, 2003 Bob Horton, 2407 West Drake wanted the Board to know that there was a well attended neighborhood meeting that was attended by most of the residents of the area. The question was put to the group, "anyone who is in favor of annexation, raise your hand." No one raised their hand. In addition, it would be a lot of financial expense to bring services up to standards. He does not see any advantage, as they were told, financially to the city for them to be part of the city. He certainly sees no advantage to the residents to be part of the city. He did not think anyone would be pleased to be city residents. Tim McNary, 2404 Moffett Drive had some concerns. There have been a number of people talk about not wanting Moore Lane to be connected to the north. He also is concerned about having it connect to the south into the park. That would make Moffett and Moore Lane a major access to what would be a city park in the future. He would like an explanation of what livestock is allowed under the Urban Estate and the grandfathering. Mr. McNary felt that the neighbors should be notified before the initiating resolution at City Council so they could attend that meeting if they wanted to. 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. They will not be helped by the stormwater utility fee. 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 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 who 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. Memorandum To: City Council Members From: Georgiana Deines, Administrative Support Supervisor) JA . Thru: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Plannin G r Date: 02/18/01 Re: Draft Summary Minutes for the South Taft Hill 7°i Annexation and Zoning On January 19, 2003 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the South Taft Hill 71" Annexation and Zoning. Members Craig and Colton were absent. Public Participation: 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 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.