Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREA ANNEXATION AND ZONING FEBRUARY 28 1994 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 64 93 A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESChair Clements observed that sometimes citizens perceive that an applicant will come to the table with a project that they know they are going to have to change, that is going to workable- -such as parking spaces. The game, as she sees it, is here is an annexation before the City but we are not going to tell you what is coming in as a proposal, causing rumors to fly. She sees that will exacerbate the problem instead of making it alleviated. Member Klataske said his recommendation would be to continue this discussion perhaps in a work session or a community forum, getting together with land owners that their land is not annexed into the City, and discuss the perceived benefit of what Is proposed by Council at this point. He suggested the 90-day period. Chair Clements stated she liked taking the leadership role. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier recommended that the Board eliminate the temporary policies that have been Implemented in this regard. Member Klataske said that was acceptable. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Phillips indicated that there was no further business and there was a Board work session Thursday, March 10, 1994. Meeting adjourned 11:22 p.m. in this manner, "the cart is before the horse." She believed the annexation should occur first and then the proposal because the proposal may never happen. Ms. Pott said in light of the previous annexation, growth and development can been seen as an opportunity for the Planning and Zoning Board and the Department to move cautiously, yet forward with growth. She indicated that she was raised in Boston, and that after 100 years, there is not much you can do within a community after development. She suggested taking one step at a time and allow for more citizen input and a careful study of the development area. She would not like to see tax dollars wasted by the Planning and Zoning Department on proposals that never occur. ICI Member Strom commented that if the policy is to be put into effect, modification suggested by Council, makes sense. He stated that, in response to Ms. Pott's comments, in every current annexation petition, issues were not really the annexation, rather, they were development --density, the plan, traffic, etc. When there is an application for a piece of ground that is trying to be annexed, it made sense to have the plan on the table where it will get discussed. The point of "wasting staff time" if you will, on proposals that do not come to fruition if the zoning doesn't occur is a valid one, but the reality is policies that the Board is operating under concerning annexation, have historically not been turned down because they met criteria, perhaps one since he has been on the Board. The annexation within the urban growth boundaries, meeting the criteria of the State Statutes, meeting the criteria of the urban growth area of the county, the annexation portion of it is almost proforma, really practically a "rubber stamp;". If the policy is to be changed and if the Board is going to look at annexation in a different way, then there needs to be discussion and how it will be done. Under the current conditions, the Board has been operating under a policy for number of years that says, little by little the City will be developing the urban growth area and, it has been the City's preference that this development occur to City standards under City regulations. One of the primary objectives has been to annex and try to deal with proposals as best we can under the regulations. He wanted entered into the record the comments made at the last discussion. He thinks operating under current policies cuts off a lot of information that is really at the core of issues that people are concerned about, rather than the annexation per se. Member Fontaae asked how often has an annexation come in without having a project following it close behind? Mr. Phillips said not often. Member Fontane said she was thinking about the REA proposal and the issues that are dealt with concerning density. She referred to the Spradlcy-Barr/ REA project which, may not be desired by the community, so the annexation is refused. She thought this is a cheapened way to make a decision, and it was not a proper way to do business in decision making policies. She asked for insight from Board experience. Chair Clements said her feeling was that someone will not annex property unless they have some idea or reason for the property to be annexed. She referred to Member Strom's earlier comments regarding annexation review. The Board needed to look at how we are going to do it. She felt that is a key point "we, the Planning and Zoning Board", City Council and interested citizens in the community, how are, "we" going to look at this review process. The Board's recommendation last time was that the City Council take 90 days to bring interested 4 PLANNING % 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 Cottler, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfrce. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rick Ensdorff, and Carolyn Wordcn. 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 , 9, 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 Glen PUD 4th 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 a landscape plan, Tract A to the Planning Department for an administrative review and approval prior to the PUD documents. Motions passed 5-0. Spring 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.