HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE ANNEXATION NO. 1 - 33-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - (10)s M.
19
I'd like to tentatively plan to take the item to the Planning and Zoning Board on the next available
meeting date, which is January 3, 2002. The item will need to go to Council 3 times. I'd tentatively
like to schedule the initiating resolution for January 15, 2002, first reading for February 19, 2002,
second reading for March 5, 2002.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dave Stringer
17
Change the term "town" to "city" on annexation #1 where it points at the hatched area of contiguity
with existing city limits.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
ours Truly
,
T OY ONES.
Qi fl nner
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
STAN EVERITT Date: 11/21/2001
C/O EVERITT COMPANIES
3030 S. COLLEGE
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FOSSIL LAKE ANNEXATIONS #1', #2, & #3 - TYPE II
(LUC), #33-01 B, and we offer the following comments:.
ISSUES:
Department: City Attorney's Office Issue Contact: Paul Eckman
15
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
18
All 3 annexation maps show slightly incorrect land ownerships in the area south of Fossil Creek
Reservoir. Please see the redlined plan of Annexation No. 1 from Doug Moore of the Natural
Resources Department for clarification.
20
The Annexations No. 1 and No. 2 depict their area by a gray tone, while No. 3 only uses a thick line
Please make all three consistent.
21
The hatching that is used on annexation No. 3 should be changed. That type of hatching is generally
used off -site of the property being annexed to show contiguity to city limits. You are showing it on -
site, which adds to confusion. Please put this hatching off -site.
22
Item A.8. on the petition for all three annexations states, "more than 50% of the landowners in the
area are subject to a covenant running with the land which affirmatively consents to the annexation."
Annexations #1 and #2 have the language about the
covenant, but at the ime the petition was signed, didn't Everline LLC actually constitue 100% of the
property owners of the first and second annexation areas? If this is the case, the language for bot
annexations #1 and #2 can be worded to satisfy the constitution with regard to this issue.
Page 1