Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRICKETTS SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 34 93,A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESr • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 7 Ms. Whetstone explained that the Harmony Corridor Plan recommended the EP Zone for the area one mile north and one mile south of Harmony Road, since it allows for a mix of uses. She added that staff believed they should go with the recommendation of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Member O'Dell moved to recommend to City Council the Ricketts Fast Annexation and Zoning. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll gave a word of advice to the neighbors in attendance. He urged them to continue to become informed and to get and stay involved in the process. Member Carroll said he would be supporting the motion. Member Strom reminded interested parties that they had an opportunity to raise questions and concerns before or at the Public Hearing on August 17th. Member Strom said he would support the motion. Member Cottier said she would support the motion. She noted for those present that zoning the parcel EP meant that it would not make it hard to keep the land use as residential. She added that the Board was not suggesting that it become industrial or commercial. Chair Walker referenced the Harmony Corridor Plan as a guiding document for future land use decisions in that area. He stated that he believed that any decision the Board would make would have to be in conformance with that Plan, which had included an extensive public review process. The motion passed, 7-0. Member Strom moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the Ricketts Second Annexation and Zoning. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Chair Walker noted that all the comments regarding the Ricketts First Annexation applied to the Ricketts second annexation. The motion passed, 7-0. 0 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 6 Ms. Whetstone affirmed that that was correct. Member Carroll asked for clarification on procedural issues for possible future development for the parcel. Ms. Whetstone explained the procedure for Special Review, adding that a neighborhood meeting as well as a Planning and Zoning Board hearing were part of the process. Norma Ricketts, 4300 Cambridge Avenue, co -applicant with her husband, Van Ricketts, outlined their reasons for requesting the annexation. She stated that there was a dwelling on the second annexation, which they were selling because they were being transferred. Ms. Ricketts added that the applicants wanted to keep ownership of the first annexation. She added that they had no current plans to develop, but wanted to keep the land for future possibilities such as retirement. PUBLIC INPUT. Nicholas Kendall, 4808 Cambridge Drive, stated that he had difficulty understanding the process. He asked for clarification on voting rights of neighbors. Mr. Peterson stated that the "50 percent" rule cited by Mr. Kendall applied only to situations where additional land was added onto the original annexation, i.e., pulling in neighboring properties. He added that that portion of the State law did not apply to this case (a voluntary annexation by property owners of their own property). Mr. Kendall also said that neighbors were concerned about future sale of the property and increased commercialization. Mr. Peterson said that any future proposed land use change of the first annexation would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board, and that neighbors would always have an opportunity for input at that time. F0.1 N to 1►1' 11 �1 -" Member Clements -Cooney clarified for those present that the Board was simply making a recommendation to City Council and that it was not the final decision making authority. Member Cottier asked Ms. Whetstone to explain why she was also recommending EP for the southern parcel, as opposed to residential. E Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 5 residents were opposed to the annexation and zoning. Mr. Keller stated that the neighbors needed more time to find out what the landowner's intent was, whether there would be a buffer zone, etc. Mr. Keller requested a deferment to a later date. Chair Walker said that a full discussion was in order, and asked if it was appropriate to discuss both annexations at the same time. Mr. Peterson replied in the affirmative. Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval of annexation and requested zoning for both parcels. Ms. Whetstone noted that it was a voluntary annexation and that the applicants were the property owners. Ms. Whetstone said that it was her understanding that there was no intent to develop the property at this time. Ms. Whetstone indicated that the owners wanted to do a Minor Subdivision on the land, a procedure which was not allowed in the County. She added that the parcel was contiguous to the City -- which made that land eligible for annexation, and that therefore the County had deferred the applicants to the City for the Minor Subdivision application. Ms. Whetstone stated that staff was recommending that the proposed zoning be EP (Employment Park Zone). She said the Zoning District was created with the Harmony Corridor Plan and was in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Whetstone added that the EP Zone requires a Special Review for any use that would come in; there are no residential uses -by -right in that Zone. Ms. Whetstone stated that all "permitted" uses must be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and approval. Ms. Whetstone said the annexation was also in accordance with policies and agreements established between the City and Larimer County. She added that the area met all State law criteria to qualify for annexation. Ms. Whetstone informed those present that on July 6, 1993, City Council would be considering a resolution to set forth the intent to annex the property and to establish a date for a public hearing. Ms. Whetstone continued by saying that notice of that hearing would be given for four consecutive Sundays and that Council would hear the ordinance on August 17, 1993. Chair Walker summarized by saying that since there was no development proposal, that the matter before the Board was the suitability of the land to be annexed in terms of land use, zoning and legal criteria. • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 4 Member Carroll asked for clarification on whether the landscape plan was being subject to staff approval or Board approval. Mr. Peterson said that staff approval was being suggested, but that Board approval was another alternative. PUBLIC INPUT. None. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED.. Member Cottier said that regardless of involvement with a grant application, that she would still like to see landscaping that distinctly separated the 120 S. Sherwood property from the rest of the complex. She added that she would be more comfortable with the landscaping approval coming back to the Board. Member Cottier moved for approval of 424 W. Oak - Final, with the condition as stated by staff, except that the landscape plan approval come back to the Board. Mr. Eckman advised that as a part of the motion, that Member Cottier mention what she was looking for in the landscaping, such as she had mentioned earlier. Mr. Peterson suggested incorporating her clarifying remarks as part of the condition. Member Cottier asked if the clarifying remarks could be added to the motion. Mr. Eckman answered in the affirmative. Member O'Dell seconded the motion containing the more detailed condition. Member Strom shared that he was uncomfortable with a condition being placed on final approval. He stated that only because of the pending grant application and the related desirable and scientific goals, would he support the motion. The motion passed 7-0. RICKETTS FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #33-93.A RICKETTS SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #34-93.A Richard Keller, one of five residents on Cambridge Avenue, stated that three of the five Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 29, 1993 Page 2 Chairman Walker asked if there was anyone from the Board or public that would like to pull an item for discussion. Mr. Nicholas Kendall, 4808 Cambridge Avenue, requested that Items #11 and #12 - Ricketts First and Second Annexations and Zoning, he pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Member Strom moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. 424 WEST OAK PUD - FINAL. #4042B Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval. He stated that the project had been approved at preliminary with the condition that there be additional landscaping at the back of 120 S. Sherwood. Mr. Olt showed a map of the PUD. Mr. Olt said that at this point in time, the staff was looking for the intent of the applicant regarding that landscaping condition. Don Richmond, co -applicant with Lynda Williams, and co-owner of 424 W. Oak, stated that they would be future owners of a Victorian home to be built at 120 S. Sherwood. Mr. Richmond stated that the reason for the delay in meeting the landscaping condition, was that the applicants had turned part of the project over to CSU to pursue a grant through the State Department of Water Conservation. Mr. Richmond said that his ongoing interest in energy conservation had led to the concept of this house being used as a demonstration project. Mr. Richmond cited contact with the State Office of Energy Conservation and passed out related materials [attachment to original Minutes]. Mr. Richmond assured the Board that it would be provided with a detailed landscaping plan. Member Cottier stated that she was the Board member who originally requested the landscaping condition, since she wanted to ensure that the property at 120 S. Sherwood had the best chance of keeping its residential character. Member Cottier said that it was her understanding that there would be just a fence between this property and the properties where houses were being converted to offices. She added that she did not believe that the fence alone was an adequate buffer. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 28, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The June 28, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:36 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone,' Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck and Heidi Phelps. Chairman Walker presented outgoing Board member O'Dell with a plaque recognizing her eight years of service on the Planning & Zoning Board. • AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 3 and May 24, 1993 P & Z Meetings; Item 2 - Save More Self Storage PUD - Preliminary & Final, #27-93; Item 3 - Orchard Park Apartments PUD - Final, #25-93; Item 4 - Gateway at Harmony road PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary & Final, #i-88F; Item 5 - 424 West Oak PUD - Final, #40-92B; Item 6 - English Ranch Subdivision, 3rd Filing - Final, #75-86J; Item 7 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 8 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval for Best Western Transmission PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 9 - Frame Annexation and Zoning - #11-93; Item 10 - Karl Peterson Annexation and Zoning - #29-93,A; Item 11 - Ricketts First Annexation and Zoning - #33-93,A; and Item 12 - Ricketts Second Annexation and Zoning - #34-93,A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item #13 - The Preserve at Fort Collins Apartments PUD - Final, #146-790; Item 14 - Lindimer Subdivision - Preliminary - #26-93; Item #15 - Greenbriar Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, #19-93; and Item #15 - Greenbriar Village PUD - First Filing - Preliminary & Final - #19-93A. Discussion Items #17, Provincetowne PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-82P and #18 - Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary - #73-82N were continued to the July Planning & Zoning Board Meeting at the applicant's request. Staff pulled Item #5, 424 West Oak PUD - Final.