Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHERMAN-LAWLER ANNEXATIONS & ZONINGS - FIRST, SECOND & THIRD - 2-94, A, B, C, D, E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESMotion 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. 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. Chair Clements mentioned that the following items for discussion will be postponed to March 7, 1994: Item 22 Waterglen PUD - Preliminary, Item 23 Waterglen - PUD Preliminary and Item 26 Proposed Amendments to the Appeals Provision of the City Code. Horsetooth West PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan. #14-88I. Mr. Shepard said that he would like the Board to consider Item 19 Silver Oaks PUD, Commercial - Preliminary and Item 20 Silver Oaks PUD, Paired Housing - Preliminary, * 14-88J together with the Horsetooth West PUD, *14-88K, since they are related under the overall development plan. The Board will accept each item, however, separately. Mr. Shepard then read the staff report. Ric Hattman - Gefroh-Hattman - The overall master plan was presented with a slide presentation describing the properties and location in detail. A day care facility was relocated closer to a different intersection to keep the morning and afternoon traffic dispersed and to reduce the length of trip time to the area. The multiple family area will be directly adjacent to the school site, with 3-units to the acre for the entire parcel. The Commercial area of Taft Hill and Horsetooth with office buildings, day care center, convenience center and car wash. With generous setbacks from arterials, screened parking by buildings, and canopy functions. Features included outdoor areas near office buildings, all buildings are singlc-story in height, wood siding on all structures. He showed slides of a near by gas/market station and did not consider it a shopping center pointing out that it was not of their quality their project would have. He stated that points should not be withheld for the project's location. CITIZEN INPUT. Glenn Church - Dalton Street in the Springfield Housing Subdivision - How are the units going to be owned? How will these units be occupied, rentals? Mr. Hattman said it is the intention of the developers to sell the duplexes in a condominium fashion, each half to one person. It is looked at a owner -occupied situation; as in the City, there may be rentals from time to time, but it is not intended to be a rental or a project maintained by the developer to rent. Member Cottier asked Mr. Shepard with respect to the commercial area, why wouldn't it be preferable to have access on Taft? Wouldn't that keep more traffic out of the neighborhood? V 0 Mr. Olt clarified that 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? 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 be appropriate to annex it but it is not required or necessary. Mr. Eckman stated that the Statutes require that if any part of a County road is annexed, the entire road is annexed, not to divide jurisdictions down the road. Member Klataske asked if Spaulding Lane, west of the annexation, is in the 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 to 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. Mussard'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. Mussard 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. Mussard 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 Cotticr 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. Mussard 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. She encouraged citizens to bring their concerns to Council as they review this proposal for annexation. property that are 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 final 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. The annexations will go to Council 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 Cotticr questioned the RP designation relative to the RLP zoning? Mr. Olt replied that they are essentially identical and read from the Zoning Code. The Code reads, "use and building placement" in RP district and in RLP district it reads "use, density and building placement" making it the same requirements. They are both low density residential districts. The reason RP was requested is that there are other areas in the area zoned RP for consistency. Member Cotticr 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 Cotticr 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 only issue for annexation. He must mect 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 County subdivisions at this time. The City is not required to annex the streets, and the inter -governmental agreement allows that decision. Member Cotticr suggested that it would be appropriate to annex Ford Lane if the majority of traffic 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 portion of the street. 1 (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 Mestas - 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 be handled as it exists today. He is opposed to the annexation. Mr. Jerry Manning - resident of Ford Lane - He disagreed with the annexation plan, 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. 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. Bob 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 would be completed and a drainage study completed with definite plans, including subdivision, lot layout and a better understanding of 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 brings 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 annexations be zoned Planned Residential 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 it would include a site plan or subdivision plat that would lay out the property, lot by lot. The street network, landscape, utility, drainage, and traffic plans would definitively define the requirements of the development. 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 to Ford Lane at this time. If, in fact, during the development plan formation, the traffic impact analysis would play a large part in the review of who would be responsible for improvements. 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 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. Don Mussard -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 are 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 occurs and it would be eligible for annexation. 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. Mussard 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 cast boundary 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. Mussard 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 or against the residents? There is 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. Mr. Mussard 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 speeds in excess of the speed limit. Mr. Mussard 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 arc 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 regarding the utilities existing to the property. It appears strange that the City would annex a property that 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. Do the property owners have any right along Spaulding Lane? Ms. Jeannine 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. land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than 5 years. (Mr. Eckman said the applicant had not desired this.] (3) It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are provided to such citizens. This standard states 'shall not apply to the extent to any portion of the area proposed to be annexed is provided with, or will within the reasonably near future be provided, with any service by through a quasi -municipal corporation" (Mr. Eckman thought some of the utility services in this area are provided through special districts.] Member Cottier asked in easier terms if the conditions just read give the Board any grounds for disapproving this annexation request? Mr. Eckman said he did not believe they gave grounds for disapproving as far as the community interest is concerned, as far as the contiguity is concerned, he believed staff is represented that it exists, there are no adult residents, the owners have not stated they intend to devote the land to agricultural use for not less than 5 years, and the municipal services are available and it is physically practicable to deliver those services. That does not mean the Board has to annex. The annexation is a legislative decision and the Council has the ability to make the decision for or against even if the conditions are met it is within their prerogative. The Board has its own prerogative as well, but based upon those statutory provisions, you make a recommend to annex. Chair Clements pointed out the Board is not the final decision makers rather City Council. Member Strom moved approval of annexation and zoning In so doing site the findings of fact in the staff report including consistency with policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins regarding the later -governmental growth agreement regarding the Fort Collins urban growth area, the criteria which the State Law that Mr. Eckman Just stated, the City Council's resolution setting forth the hearing date, the fact that the requested zoning was RLP with PUD condition meets the Land Use Policy Plan. Member Strom commented in the process of making this motion, as part of the urban growth area, the community interest has been established in terms of policies and guidelines that the Planning and Zoning Board is operating under. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. r. n 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 PLANNING is ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 29,1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The February 28, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfree. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staf f members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rick Ensdorff, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda. The minutes of January 24 and 31 were tabled for approval since they were not included in the Board packets. Items 22, 23 and 26 were continued to the March 7, 1994 P & Z Board meeting. Chair Clements requested if there were items to be pulled from the staff and from the audience; Items 2, 3 12, 13, 14 and 15 were pulled for the discussion agenda. Member Strom moved to approve consent agenda Items 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10, 16 and 25 from the Discussion Agenda. Member Cottler seconded the motion, with the condition with the developer and/or property owner of South Gleā–  PUD 41h Filing be responsible for the construction and on going maintenance of Tract A, being the detention area of the development. This commitment must be noted on the overall site plan for South Glen PUD 4th Filing prior to the recording of PUD documents. With a second condition that the developer and/or property owner of the Southglenn PUD 4th Filing, submit it landscape plan, Tract A to the Planning Department for an administrative review and approval prior to the PUD documents. Motions passed 5-0. Shrine Creek Manor PUD Mr. Charles Gish - 1800 Pawnee - The planned expansion does not include additional parking and he perceives it as a problem. The lot is not adequate with 45-50 existing parking stalls. He pointed out that the staff doesn't utilize the lot on a regular basis and instead uses street parking. He has witnessed parking in the red zones and also in his driveway. He would like to see additional parking added. Currently the overflow is heavy on Stuart and on Pawnee where he lives. Ms. Whetstone, project planner, indicated the proposed expansions do not significantly increase the volume of traffic at this site. The expansion is to take care of existing clients with a dining room addition, office spaces and a therapy room to provide a service to existing clients, as an added service. She believed there are two additional parking spaces on the north side by the therapy room.