Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOYOTE RIDGE 1ST ANNEXATION & ZONING - 43-98 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 18 Council Growth Management has had a chance to review the proposed annexations. He also asked that the Natural Resources Department come back with alternatives regarding enforcement with a memo from the Sheriff's Department and a presentation at worksession from Natural Resources including a memo as part of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion for continuance was approved 6-0. Project: 2021 Timberline Lane Rezoning, #3-01 Project Description: Request to rezone approximately .75 acre located at 2021 Timberline lane from UE, Urban Estate, to HC, Harmony Corridor. The parcel is generally located west of and adjacent to Timberline Road, south of and adjacent to Timberline Lane and approximately 150 feet north of Harmony Road. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence Member Bernth claimed a conflict of interest on this item and excused himself. Brian Grubb, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that a letter that was received today from a surrounding property owner was being distributed for the record. He stated that the site currently has a garage and a mobile home existing, and gains access from Timberline Lane to the north. He reported that there are a variety of surrounding land uses, to the north and to the west there is low -density residential development. To the east is a Diamond Shamrock and the old Harmony School; to the south, the old Harmony Store and some small residences and businesses located along Harmony Road. Planner Grubb reviewed the site shots for the Board. He stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held and there were approximately 10 neighbors that showed up. He stated there were a variety of comments and concerns and those were included in the Board's packet. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 17 a higher use of that area than there has been in the past. There is now more of a need by the Natural Resources Department to have these properties annexed. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the Sheriff can deputize the Rangers to perform the duties as required without having to annex. Planner Jones stated that he talked with Tom Shoemaker and he stated that there were ways it could be arranged, but the Natural Resources department would prefer a cleaner way of doing it and just make it part of the city so there is no question of the authority. Member Colton asked if the Natural Resources Board has heard this and what was their recommendation. Mr. Moore replied that they were recommending annexation. Member Craig asked how many feet of street is in the flag pole annexation Planner Jones replied roughly '/, mile. That is the road right-of-way and also 100 feet of land within the southern portion of the Land Fill property. Planner Jones reviewed slides of the proposed annexations. Member Colton stated that in the petition for annexation, it shows eight points. He did not feel that it has been shown that it is desirable and necessary that they be annexed into the city of Fort Collins. He also did not believe that the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. He felt that this needs to be continued to have Council Growth Management give some further direction on whether we want to pursue the main intent of this, which is creating an enclave, or that we vote it down tonight because of the points. He did not feel that he can approve this given the fact that this identical proposal raises some serious concerns not more than two years ago, enough that it was pretty well derailed in the eyes of the Growth Management Council. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if it was possible to get this to the Council Growth Management Committee to look at this and follow what Member Colton is looking for, and help the Board out on the enclave issue. Director Gloss believed that we could do that in the 60 days prescribed in the Code. Member Colton recommended continuance of the eight proposed annexations to have Council Growth Management hear the items to see if they feel it is worth pursuing. He recommended continuance until the second meeting in April after Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 16 final authority, then instead of doing that, they are required to annex. But if the project is under a certain amount of trips, then they do not have to go before the County Commissioners for their final decision and they have the choice of not annexing." Member Craig asked for clarification from the legal staff. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that except for the receiving area land in connection with the Fossil Creek Reservoir, the County agrees that it will not accept any development application, as that term is defined in Section 4.2.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, for property that has any contiguity to the city limits and thus, can be made eligible for voluntary annexation to the city, whether through a series of annexations or otherwise. He felt the catch was that some things that look like development to us, are in the County's terminology not development applications. Director Gloss added that based on the number of applications we have gotten in, it was his understanding that most of the review going through the county process is going through the Planning Board or the staff and not the County Commissioners. Just like development applications in the city do not go to City Council, they go to the Planning Board or an Administrative Hearing Officer. Most of the applications, the Commissioners are not going to see, and if it is contiguous and does not meet the threshold, then it is not forced to be annexed and meet the standards. We routinely get development applications referred to us in Larimer County, in the urban area, and our comment is that they meet the city standard, but there is no teeth in their code to require it. We can only request that they do it. The only exception is the new urban area street standards and those were enacted March 15f. The applicants will now have to meet the street standards. Member Craig felt that was a huge loophole and felt the Board should send some recommendations to Council. Chairperson Gavaldon suggested that they talk about that issue at an upcoming worksession. Chairperson Gavaldon was unclear about anything that has changed since the first time the Board saw these applications. Planner Jones replied that he did not think anything has changed except for the language in the IGA. Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department added that one change is that we are starting to use those natural areas and we are starting to try to manage them. There is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 15 outside of the Urban Growth Area. Since, there has been a change that says that the city has the discretion to do that. The reason for the change was for something like this to happen, where there is a natural area outside of the city limits. The change would give the city the option for annexation. It used to say in the Intergovernmental Agreement that we can't annex south of County Road 32. That was an effort to keep the area between Fort Collins and Loveland in compliance with the separator plan we have called The Plan for the Area between Fort Collins and Loveland One exception that if it is a natural area that is being annexed, and it is consistent with what is shown in that plan for open space in that area, that would be the exception that the city could annex past County Road 32. There is the one -quarter section of the Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation that is south of that alignment. Member Colton stated that he did not specifically remember a major concern being that we could not annex without moving the UGA. Planner Jones stated that he inherited the project about two years ago. He stated that after he started, Bob Blanchard and Alan Krcmarik did a study specifically talking about the enclave and the cost of doing that enclave. What it would cost now versus in the future. What we are talking about tonight is the annexations, and although it would create the possibility to annex the enclave in the future, we are not saying that we are going to do that tonight, and we are not saying that we are not. We are only saying that there is a possibility established to make that decision in the future. Member Craig asked about the new Intergovernmental Agreement and did he have a round figure of what is in the enclave, that if it were not an enclave, could come in as County Development and there would not be urban standards. Planner Jones replied that the IGA basically says that if a development proposal comes in for a piece of ground that is contiguous to the city limits and it is in the county. The county will send them to the city for annexation and develop under city rules. The new agreement also prohibits applicants from subdividing property to create a property that had contiguity to the city no longer have contiguity. He stated that there has not been an analysis of how much of the land is not contiguous to the city, so if development does come in we would not have control over it versus the stuff that is contiguous that would trigger a city review. Member Craig thought the IGA says that if they are in the UGA, and they are contiguous to city boundaries they have to go to the city. She asked if that has been taken out of the IGA. Planner Jones replied it has not been taken out. In the Larimer County Land Use Code, in Section 4.2, it says, "that if a project goes before the County Commissioners as the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 14 Project Description: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 237 Acres (Cathy Fromme 1st (81) and 2"d (156) and Coyote Ridge 1,096.5 Acres (Coyote Ridge 1 st (2 5) 2"d (181), 3rd (161), 4m (192), 5m (325) and 61h(235). The requested zoning is POL, Public Open Lands. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He presented graphics of the proposed annexations. He spoke on the location and surrounding uses. Mr. Jones stated that this series of annexations would create an enclave of county properties which the city would have the option three years from the effective date of these annexations to annex the enclave. Mr. Jones addressed the question from worksession about why we want this annexation. The first reason is that the Natural Resource Department currently have portions of the Cathy Fromme and Coyote Ridge Natural Areas open to the public. There are also portions that are not open to the public. This causes some confusion for enforcement. The rangers that are employees of the Natural Resources Department police the areas that are open to the public, whereas, the areas not open to the public are policed by the Sheriff. The Natural Resources Department would like to get the properties into one jurisdiction so there will be no question about who has authority. The second is to give the city the option, three years into the future, if Council so chooses at that point, to be able to annex the enclave created by these annexations. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Colton stated that these same proposals came up two years ago and there were serious questions about the implications about doing this in terms of the Urban Growth Area, policy, cost of road maintenance and the desirability of having an enclave or not. It went to the Growth Management Committee and they said they did not want to act on these proposals. He was concerned about these proposals coming back without having Council specifically give direction for them to come back. He asked why they are coming back again. Planner Jones reported that it was his understanding that when the annexations came forward the first time, the Intergovernmental Agreement between Ladmer County and the City of Fort Collins specifically said that we agree that we won't annex properties Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Daggett responded that staffs perspective is more that the implementation of the future alternatives are really an appropriation process. This is a strategic plan that lays out the guidelines. The implementation of the various scenarios, they are your guide, and as you move forward from scenario one, which is at no cost, to scenario two, which has a contingency of a federal grant for $38,000,000 for capital improvements. If we receive the money, then City Council would have to make an appropriation decision. The 3`d and 41h scenarios are goals of theirs that would also end up in an appropriation decision on the part of City Council. Member Colton recommended approval of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan to City Council. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Colton commented that a lot of good work has gone into this plan and was very well thought out. He felt funding may be a problem, but it is a good vision. Member Craig concurred. She felt it was a very well put together plan. She felt that they have raised productivity in a very admirable way. She wished we could get more employers on board. Chairperson Gavaldon also concurred with other members. He hoped as more employment moves to the Harmony Corridor that a good eye is kept and that we don't overload any routes. He also was concerned about the funding. The motion was approved 5-0. Projects: Cathy Fromme 1st Natural Area Annexation & Zoning, #40-98 Cathy Fromme 2Id Natural Area Annexation & Zoning, #40-98A Coyote Ridge 1 "Annexation & Zoning, #43-98 Coyote Ridge 2Id Annexation & Zoning, #43-98A Coyote Ridge 3`d Annexation & Zoning, #43-98B Coyote Ridge 4th Annexation & Zoning, #43-98C Coyote Ridge 51h Annexation & Zoning, #43-98D Coyote Ridge 6ch Annexation & Zoning, #43-98E Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 2 17. #43-98E Coyote Ridge 6th Annexation and Zoning 18. #3-01 2021 Timberline Lane Rezoning 19. #12-97D Harmony Technology Park, Hewlett Packard — Project Development Plan Member Colton and Chairperson Gavaldon declared a conflict of interest on Item 19, Hewlett Packard. Member Bernth declared a conflict of interest on Item 18, 2021 Timberline Rezoning. Lynn DiMirando, citizen asked for Item 3, Lincoln Jr. High School Addition be pulled for discussion. Betty Aragon, citizen, asked for Item 7, Poudre Development Rezoning be pulled for discussion. Member Craig asked for Item 4, Settlers Green at Rigden Farm, PDP, Modification of Standards be pulled for discussion. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1, minus the May 18th minutes, 2, 5, 6, and 8. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Lincoln Junior High School Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review, #13-98B Project Description: Request to expand Lincoln Junior High School by constructing a new building containing 19,497 s.f. The building would feature classrooms, computer lab, gymnasium, recreational facilities and kitchen. The predominant after school user would be the Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County. The site is approximately one acre and zoned UE, Urban Estate. Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter and Meyer(late). Member Torgerson was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Jones, Moore, Shepard, Olt, Grubb, K. Moore, Reiff, Schlueter, Wamhoff, Virata, Wilder, Bracke, Daggett. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18 (Continued), October 19, 2000 and January 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. # 6-01 Harris Bilingual Elementary School Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review 3. #40-00 Lincoln Junior High School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review 4. #56-98J Settler's Green at Rigden Farm, PDP — Modification of Standards 5. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 6. #7-01 Staley Annexation and Zoning 7. #1-01 Poudre Development Rezoning 8. #2-01 Speights PUD, Lots 6 & 7 and the West Half of Tract A Rezoning Discussion Agenda: 9. Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan 10. #40-98 Cathy Fromme Natural Area Annexation and Zoning 11. #40-98A Cathy Fromme 2"d Natural Area Annexation and Zoning 12. #43-98 Coyote Ridge 1st Annexation and Zoning 13. #43-98A Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation and Zoning 14. #43-98B Coyote Ridge 3`d Annexation and Zoning 15. #43-98C Coyote Ridge 4th Annexation and Zoning 16. #43-98D Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation and Zoning