Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHERMAN-LAWLER ANNEXATIONS & ZONINGS - FIRST, SECOND & THIRD - 2-94, A, B, C, D, E - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO APPLICANTDRAFT She encouraged citizens to bring their concerns to Council as they review this proposal for annexation. Motion carried 5-0. Member Strom moved to recommend the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation and Zoning with the condition that it be placed in the neighborhood sign district. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 0 Member Strom moved to recommend the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation and Zoning with the condition that it be placed in the neighborhood sign district. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Phillips replied that the language is permissive on the annexation of streets and road and is not directive. The decision is really up to the City. At some point, it may beappropriate to annex it but it is not required or necessary. Mr. Eckman stated that the Statutes require that any part of a County road is annexed, the entire road is annexed, not to divide jurisdictions down the road. Member Klataske asked if the Spaulding Lane, west of the annexation, City or County? Mr. Olt replied it is in the County. Member Strom asked if there should be three motions. Mr. Eckman replied there should be three motions for the three separate annexations. Member Strom moved to recommend the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation and Zoning with the condition that it be placed in the neighborhood sign district. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Strom stated that all of the discussion about Statutes is establishing eligibility and what the Board is really guided by, in terms of decision making, is City policy, It was his understanding of urban growth area boundaries and agreement that gradually in a step-by-step rational manner the City intends to eventually to include the entire urban growth area within the City limits.. In response to Mr. Lessard's comment about access through the City in this regard, what happens is little by little there are applications and the Board takes them one at a time to review them. It was his understanding of City policy as adopted by Council that we will continue to annex properties as it makes sense to do so within the urban growth area. Recognizing that we don't have all the answers to questions, we are operating under a policy that does not allow the Board to review proposed development plans until the land is annexed and zoned formally by the City.. He didn't think it was the best policy, but was what the Board is operating under at this time. Chair Clement said she thought it was interesting that Mr. Lessard brought up the fact that he felt the way annexation and zoning is proceeding by virtue the Board is seeing the annexation and zoning without a parallel process that what maybe proposed on this site. The way it is currently operating under is the fact that annexation and zonings are looked at first. As Mr. Lessard has pointed out you can't separate the two. Mr. Strom said we are making our recommendations to City Council under this policy. This is an example that we might be able to show Council that problems are created and perhaps one member of the community would like to see regarding annexations and zonings. Member Cottier said the Board usually does approve annexation requests that meet all our policies, which this one does. She has shared some of the concerns that Mr. Lessard brought out and thinks that Ford Lane be studied and thought it inappropriate for development to leave it as a County road. She sees that as receiving a lot of traffic from the proposed development. Mr. Olt replied that they are identical and read from the LDGS "use and building placement" in RP and in RLP it reads "use, density " and building placement". making it the same requirements. They are both low density residential districts. The reason this was requested is that there are other areas in the area zoned RP for consistency. Member Cottier commented that perhaps the two zonings should be redefined or consider one designation. Member Klataske asked how the City arrives at 1/6th contiguity on the first annexation? Mr. Olt used the map to explain boundaries to city limits and location of 1/6 contiguity including Spaulding Lane with other portions already in the City. Subsequently, each annexation will gain contiguity. Member Cottier asked about the issue of annexation of land into the city without road access. She did not recall other annexations when that has been brought up, with the exception of Anheuser-Busch. Mr. Eckman said as far as the statutes are concerned, it has no relevance; contiguity with respect to Colorado Statutes is the key and almost only issue for annexation. The 1/6 contiguity and signatures for owners for appropriate land ownership, then there is the ability to annex the property. Unless two conditions exist, and rarely two exist, the contiguity is the primary issue. Extension of city streets is not a criteria that must be met for annexation eligibility. Mr. Olt commented from inter -governmental agreement for the Urban Growth Area that the annexation is based upon. Under Section 2.10 - Annexation: "said city agrees to petition any undeveloped parcels of land"... "nor shall the city be required to annex any such county road if such road is primarily used by county development." In this case, Country Club Road would be servicing a number of subdivisions at this time. The City is not required to annex the entire streets, and the inter -governmental agreement allows that decision. Member Cottier suggested that it would be appropriate to annex Ford Lane if the majority on Ford Lane were generated there, does that not follow? Mr. Eckman said since the annexation is contiguous to Ford Lane and with the County's consent, as in the case.of Spaulding Lane, the County is the applicant for the annexation of that. If the County were to apply for the annexation of Ford Lane. Mr. Olt clarified the City is the applicant and the County is the owner of the Spaulding Lane right-of-way. Member Cottier asked why wouldn't all of Ford Lane be included in the annexation and become a city street? would be completed and a drainage'study completed with definite plans including subdivision, lot layout and better understand density issues. Chair Clements commented that the Board does not have a proposed plan so traffic flow cannot be addressed at this meeting, this annexation bring only the property into the city, and the State statute sets the guidelines for review. She emphasized that traffic is a concern to the neighbors. Should this be zoned RP with a PUD condition, what does that entail? Mr. Olt stated that it is being recommended that all three parcels constituting the Sherman - Lawler annexation would be zoned planned residential RP with a planned unit development. condition at this time. Should the property be annexed by the City Council, it would then have a PUD condition attached to the ordinance of the annexation. Chair Clements said with the PUD condition, if a proposal comes in there is criteria to meet such as storm water drainage report, utility reports, etc. Mr. Olt stated that when a development proposal submittal is made to the City as a PUD that would constitute a site plan or subdivision plat that would lay out the property, lot by lot, the street network, landscape, utility, drainage, and traffic plans and, would definitively give the requirements of the development and would be reviewed. Chair Clements asked about sidewalks in that area, road maintenance and improvements and the responsibility for them. Mr. Olt said as an annexation and.zoning request, the Board is not looking at improvements at this time to Ford Lane. If, in fact, during the development plan formation, who would be responsible for improvement, the traffic impact analysis would play a large part in the review. Chair Clements asked if there are concrete advantages to the residents with the annexation of this property. Mr. Phillips stated that the advantages of annexation is in the eye of the landowner for whatever reason they desire to annex to the city. There are additional services available to the property thatare not available to the property outside the city limits, but the advantages would be for the property owner to list. Chair Clements stated again, that the Board is only making a recommendation to Council and is not the authority, if the citizens would like to address. this issue again it would be before the City Council, is that correct? Mr. Olt said yes that is correct, March 15, for first reading and April 5 for second reading; so there will be two opportunities for the public to address this issue. Member Cottier questioned the RP designation to the RLP zoning? Mr. Lessard continued to state that traffic is a problem along Country Club Road, especially with pedestrian and biking traffic. There are not sidewalks, there are deep ditches, only cars can travel along this road usually in speeds excess to the speed limit. Mr. Lessard said this was "piece -meal" development and was opposed to it as a disadvantage to the residents. He asked what the advantage to, the residents or. city to have a piece of property annexed into the city. He did not understand why the owner was not the applicant. The developers are the applicant and the property is simply under contract for purchase. He was curious about the property owners feelings about the annexation. What was the time frame for the adjoining residents for formulating thoughts believing the residents will have no other impacts upon the decision by Council. It would be helpful to think over the new information gathered this evening and get it organized to present. He questioned the statutes regard the utilities existing to the property. It appears strange that the City would annex a property that the City has no direct connection by street to the city. There is no access to the city from the property unless there is access through the County or private property. The Larimer County right-of-way seems unusual, but understood it was under statute, for.the City to cooperate in this type of annexation which did not seem right to him. Does the property owners have any right along Spaulding Lane? Ms. Jeanine Hammond - lives at the corner of Ford Lane and Country Club Road -. She had two concerns: (1) Traffic - Increase in traffic along Ford Lane, an increase of 100 cars per day is too much for the existing street. (2) Residential Setting - The change in the rural openness is the motivation for locating her home in the area and would like to see low density to be compatible to the existing residential. area. Mr. Ed Mestis - resident of Ford Lane - He agreed with the previous residents comments and especially the issue of traffic on Ford Lane. The idea of the increase of car and pedestrian traffic is not adequate to handle as it exists today. He is opposed to the annexation. Mr. Jerry Manning - resident of Ford Lane - He disagreed with the annexation plan and mostly because of the development, which he.recognized he could not address at this meeting. He has resided in this area for eight years and agrees it would change the country setting residents presently enjoy and he also has a hearing impaired child which was one of the reasons for locating to the area. He was opposed to the annexation.) Mr. Carl Spaulding - owns property to the .west of. the area. He said until traffic issues are resolved, there should be no annexation. There is no reasonable plan for the traffic patterns that will develop in this area. This needs to be studied closely. Mr. Ed Powers - property owner to the west of the project. The neighbors understand that the zoning is RP with a condition that the property be zoned PUD. He needed a confirmation on that plan for zoning. He understood that a traffic study would be completed, a utility study Excerpt from Fe. ary 28, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board minutes D T Sherman -Lawler - 1st. 2nd and 3rd Annexation and Zonine. Mr. Steve Olt read the staff report and recommended approval by the Board. The staff report reflected "Carryall Lane" and he noted this was incorrect for the record. He continued to read the report. Dick Rutherford - Stuart and Associates - representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Lawler in this annexation. The annexation is similar to the previous one. It has contiguity, has the City of Fort Collins boundary on the south side of Spaulding Lane, it is inside the urban growth area, it has utilities available to be developed, it is contiguous to urban density development and is compatible to size and density in an RP zone CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. Don Lessard - Resident next to proposed annexation on Ford Lane. He said that it is difficult to separate the annexation from the development project. If any property is annexed and for whatever the reason the developer is not able to continue the development under the plans that were presented in a neighborhood meeting, then the land is agriculture in the city and seems incongruent. There issues related to traffic, access, availability of services from the city. Chair Clements said the Board, under State law, cannot look at the issues of traffic, access, availability of services, etc. Mr. Eckman stated the question of development to be the following issues: there is no plan to look at, streets if they are not physically able to extend to the area to be annexed it is an urban service the Board can consider; the agricultural aspect --farming in the city is not a use prohibited, there are places where this occur and it would be eligible for annexation area. Chair Clements asked that questions about the infra -structure of the road leading to this area need to be addressed to her and staff later will answer the questions. Mr. Lessard asked for clarification as the annexation relates to Ford Lane. Mr. Olt said that on the location map it appears not go to Ford Lane. The eastbound of the annexation property would be to the center -line or the west right-of-way of Ford Lane. The applicants said now they will be purchasing property to Ford Lane. Mr. Lessard asked what kind of impact does this have the on residents of Ford Lane. If there is additional traffic on Ford Lane which has been proposed by the developer, what does that do for against the residents, the question of road maintenance, will there be more taxes placed on the local residents, etc. He stated that it impacts the neighborhood negatively because of the impact of traffic on Ford Lane. qq Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning Department s 4� 3 City of Fort Collins March 9, 1994 Ed Lawler Re/Max First Assoc. 3665 JFK Parkway Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Sherman -Lawler - First Annexation and Zoning, #2-94A Sherman -Lawler - Second Annexation and Zoning; #2-94B,C Sherman -Lawler - Third Annexation and Zoning, #2-94D,E Dear Sir: On February 28, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins approved the above referenced annexations. If you have any questions, please call our office at 221-6750. S' 6erely, J S eve Olt Project Planner SO/gjd 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750