HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAFT CANYON FIRST ANNEXATION & ZONING - 21-87, A - REPORTS - FIRST READINGI NUMBER: 17 a-b
AGENDA ITE�i SUMMARY '�"
DATE: July 1, 1987
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Ken Waido
UBJECT :
Items Relating to the Taft Canyon First Annexation and Zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning request. The
Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation
and proposed zoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1987, Annexing
Approximately .386 Acres, Known as the Taft Canyon First Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1987, Zoning
Approximately .386 Acres, Known as the Taft Canyon First Annexation,
Into the T-Transition Zoning District.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately .386 acres of property,
located south of Horsetooth Road (County Road 38E) and west of the Taft
Canyon PUD, west of Taft Hill Road. The property is presently undeveloped.
APPLICANTS: City of Fort Collins OWNERS: Same
BACKGROUND:
The applicant and owner, the City of Fort Collins, is requesting annexation
of approximately .386 acres of property, located south of Horsetooth Road
and west of the Taft Canyon PUD, west of Taft Hill Road. The property is
undeveloped. This is a voluntary annexation. This property, when combined
with the Taft Canyon Second Annexation, will give contiguity for annexation
to other properties located west of the Taft Canyon PUD within the Urban
Growth Area. The property in the future can also be used in conjunction
with other properties which annex into the City to create an enclave for
additional annexation of developed properties in the general area.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and
Larimer County contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT
COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, the City will annex property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property
gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common
boundary with the Hahn/Seven Springs Annexation to the south.
DATE: July /, 1987 1, -2- l- ITEM NUMBER: 17 a-b
The requested zoning for this annexation is the T-Transitional, Zoning
District. The T district designation is used as a holding zone for
properties annexed into the City with no immediate development plans. The
property will probably never develop independently because of its geometric
shape but could be used as a bike/pedestrian corridor between existing and
future developments.
The City received several letters related to the annexation of this
property (copies attached). Some of the letters were not about issues
related to the annexation but concerned themselves with the street design
of the Taft Canyon PUD. Copies of these letters were forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Findings
I. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and
agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN
GROWTH AREA.
2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a
voluntary annexation by the City of Fort Collins.
3. The requested T-Transitional zoning district will be used as a holding
zone for the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION•
At their regular monthly meeting on May 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning
Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed annexation and
requested zoning.
0 0
ORDINANCE NO. 102, 1987
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
TAFT CANYON FIRST ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 30 of the Constitution of the State of
Colorado requires that one of the following conditions be met before an
unincorporated area be annexed to a municipality:
1. The question of annexation be submitted to a vote of the
landowners and registered electors of the area to be annexed
and the majority of such persons voting, vote in favor of
annexation; or
2. The annexing municipality receive a petition for annexation
signed by more than 50% of the landowners in the area who
own more than 50% of the land; or
3. The area to be annexed be entirely surrounded by or be
solely owned by the annexing municipality; and
WHEREAS, 100% of the landowners in the Taft Canyon First Annexation
area have signed a petition for annexation; and
WHEREAS, not less than one -sixth (1/6th) of the perimeter of the area
. to be annexed is contiguous with the City of Fort Collins and a community
of interest exists between the territory to be annexed and the City of Fort
Collins; and the territory to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in
the near future; and such territory is integrated or is capable of being
integrated with the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, no election is required and no additional terms and
conditions are to be imposed in connection with this annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has found and determined and does hereby find and
determine that said petition is in substantial compliance with the
annexation laws of the State of Colorado and that the territory is eligible
for annexation, and the City Council desires to annex the same to the City
of Fort Collins; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the following described property be, and hereby is,
annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be
known as the Taft Canyon First Annexation.
A tract of land situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of
Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as
is follows:
Considering the South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section
33 as bearing N 89035'38" W and with all bearings contained
herein relative thereto, commencing at the Southeast corner of
said Section 33; thence N 89°35'38" W 1,773.34 feet to the true
point of beginning; thence N 89°35'38" W 917.72 feet to the South
1/4 corner of said Section 33; thence N 00049'51" E 1420.56 feet;
thence S 00°23'30.4" W 1410.51 feet; thence S 89'35'38" E 909.50
feet; thence S 15°17'30" W 10.35 feet to the true point of
beginning.
The above described tract of land contains .386 acre more or
less.
Section 2. That in annexing said territory to the City of Fort
Collins, the City of Fort Collins does not assume any obligation respecting
the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service
lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the
territory hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the
City of Fort Collins.
Section 3. That no building permit shall be issued for any of the
lands herein described unless said lands have been zoned under the zoning
ordinances of the City.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
published this 7th day of July, A.D. 1987, and to be presented for final
passage on the 21st day of July, A.D. 1987.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of July, A.D. 1987.
DIM
ATTEST:
City Cler
• 0
ORDINANCE NO. 103, 1987
• OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 118 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE TAFT CANYON FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning District Map adopted by Chapter 118 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed
and amended by including the property known as the Taft Canyon First
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the T, Transition
Zoning District:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of
Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as
follows:
Considering the South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section
33 as bearing N 89*35138" W and with all bearings contained
herein relative thereto, commencing at the Southeast corner of
. said Section 33; thence N 89°35'38" W 1,773.34 feet to the true
point of beginning; thence N 89°35'38" W 917.72 feet to the South
1/4 corner of said Section 33; thence N 00°49'51" E 1420.56 feet,
thence S 00023'30.4" W 1410.51 feet; thence S 89°35'38" E 909.50
feet; thence S 15°17'30" W 10.35 feet to the true point of
beginning.
The above described tract of land contains .386 acre more or
less.
Section 2. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed
to amend said Zoning District Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
published this 7th day of July, A.D. 1987, and to be presented for final
passage on the 21st day of July, A.D. 1987.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
Mayor
Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of July, A.D. 1987.
ayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1
C;
0
0
•
4119 Picadilly Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
May 18, 1987
Mr. Ken Waldo, Chief Planner
Office of Development Services, Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Mr. Waldo:
Unfortunately we were not able to attend the public hearing on May 18, 1987 on
the proposed annexations and zonings commonly referred to as Taft Canyon -
First Annexation and Zoning #21-87A and Taft Canyon - Second Annexation and
Zoning #21-87B. We do have at least one concern with these proposed
annexations; so hopefully this letter does not reach you too late for your
consideration in this matter.
The map included with your letter announcing the public hearing showed no exit
from the new lower part of the Taft Canyon Subdivision to either Taft Hill Road
or West Horsetooth Road other than the two eisting exits through the upper part
of the Taft Canyon Subdivision. This plan implies that all traffic to the
lower part of Taft Canyon Subdivision will have to go by the corner of
Picadilly and Idledale Drives, near which we live. Not only will this increase
traffic on these narrow drives to unacceptable levels for safety and noise
reasons, but it also could create an access problem in the event of any
emergency in the lower part of the Taft Canyon Subdivision.
We also do not understand why the proposed areas would be annexed without
annexing the existing Taft Canyon. Subdivision at the same time. Why create a
pocket of unannexed area?
Our understanding of the proposed annexations may be in error. If so, please
let us know. And your office may not be the final decision maker on these
matters, but until they are cleared up in our minds, we will continue to oppose
the proposed annexations.
Sincerely,
Bruce Boiliger and Lisa Curtis
RECEIVED
MAY 211987
PLANIWlv�
DEPARTMENT
Thomas R. Fay
4301 Whippeny Dr.
Ft.Collins, CO 80526
May 14, 1987
Ken Waido. Chief Planner
Office of Development and Services Planning
City of Fort Collins
P.O.Box 580
Fort � Collins,�Colorado 80522
Dear Mr. Waido--
I am responding to the recent notice of annexation of property
adjoining the Taft Canyon Subdivision. I cannot attend the
hearing on the date mentioned in the letter, so I am submitting
my comments in writing.
As I understand it, Fort Collins is proposing to annex a ten foot
strip of land which just happens to correspond to the non -city
borders of the Taft Canyon Subdivision. Since that land
represents no taxable base for the city to speak of, it seems
clear to me that the purpose of the annexation is solely to
surround the Taft Canyon Subdivision with city land. This, as
I'm sure you are aware, would deprive me and others living in
this subdivision of any say in the eventual annexation of this
subdivision by Fort Collins. I believe this violates the spirit,
if not the letter, of the state law giving residents of lands to
be annexed a say in that annexation. The appearance is that Fort
Collins wishes to increase its tax base in a painless (for the
city) manner at the expense of this subdivision.
I don't know whether being a resident of Fort Collins would be
better or worse for me: no-one has explained what that might mean
in the way of improved services or changes in tax rates. It is
entirely possible that I would consider residency a good deal,
all things considered. However, I resent not being given any
choice in the matter, especially when a state law has been passed
which clearly was intended to give me that right.
I am not in favor of the annexations 'Taft Canyon - First
Annexation and —Zoning #21-87A' or 'Taft Canyon - Second
Annexation and Zoning #21-87B.' I feel the city, if it desires
to annex the Taft Canyon Subdivision, should explain what that
might mean to the residents of this subdivision and put it to a
vote of those residents. Annexation by encirclement cannot
create loyal, contributing citizens: fair play and above board
dealings can.
Sincerely,
K}
_/^��� ��
Thomas R. Fay
/�-� |
' /
/�
May 14, 1987 0
RECEIVED
Office of Development
Service Planning
300 LaPorte Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado
80522
Attention: Ken Weido, Chief Planner
and
Planning and Zoning Board
City Planning Staff
Dear Ken:
MAY 15 1987
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
Thank you for your letter concerning annexation and zoning for the
Taft Canyon sub -division.
Since we will be out of town when the public hearing will be held
we are forwarding our comments and concerns in this letter. We are
not certain that our concerns are appropriate for this hearing but
we think that they may apply to the entire development and not simply
the annexation issue. Our concerns are of such importance that we
cannot endorse annexation until our concerns are addressed, primarily
access and egress into and out of the lower area.
We were told, when we bought into this sub -division, that there would
be a road from South Taft Hill Road into the lower area. This was a
• sensible consideration but it appears this is not to be so.
At present there are two roads that enter this sub -division. One off
South Taft and one off West Horsetooth.
This is of personal concern to us because since we reside at the corner
of Picadilly Drive and Idledale Drive it turns them into major
thoroughfares. All families residing on these two streets will be
subjected to a great deal of traffic, both from residents of the lower
area and interested onlookers during the construction and sale phase
and afterwards. This constitutes a high traffic situation which
additionally is unsafe because Picadilly and Idledale Drives are not
wide enough to tolerate that amount of traffic with vehicles parked
on those roads.
In addition, a road from South Taft Frill Road into the lower area
would help to alleviate two other potential safety hazards.
First, we believe the aforementioned road would provide egress from
the area in the event of dam breakagc and the north end of the area
becomes inaccessible because of water.
Secondly, it simply makes good sense to have more than one way to
depart an area for other emergencies. Further, it provides an entrance
for emergency vehicles that otherwise would have to travel out of the
• way to reach someone at the east end of the lower section. When seconds
count, this can have disastrous results.
Office of Develop,._�nt
Service Planning
May 14, 1987
Page Two
We believe we are making known a "grassroots" concern that will have
the support of all those residing on those two roads, if not the
entire development.
We bring this concern to your attention because it seems to be
pertinent to the annexation issues and simply should be considered
because of the aforementioned safety reasons.
There is also a temporary road cut in from Horsetooth Road which is
used primarily for construction traffic. It works.well and should
be considered to become permanent and additional to an entrance from
South Taft Hill Road.
Looking at the plot, the road that goes out of the lower area goes
into an empty field south and has no access to South Taft Hill Road.
I have enclosed your map with explanations.
We cannot honestly support the annexation unless the road issue is
satisfactorily resolved. Thank you for your patience and concern.
Sincerely,
Audi and John Rinne
112 Picadilly Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado
80526
226-1881
`..
�� 2
Ira(
ap`
ok s � o
rr
I
Planning & Zoning Boa, Minutes
May 18, 1987
page 7
TAFT CANYON FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #21-87, 21-87A
TAFT CANYON SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #22-87, 22-87A
Member Dow indicated a conflict of interest on these two items and he would
to refraining from the discussion and vote.
Ken Waido gave staff description noting two letters had been received May
14 from property owners in the area: Mr. & Mrs. Rinne expressed concern
with the design of the subdivision streets, access and safety. Since this
did not deal with the annexation issue the letter was forwarded to the
County Commissioners. A letter from Thanas Fay expressed concern over the
City's involuntary annexation of two 10-foot wide lots on the periphery of
this subdivision. Mr. Waido explained the City agreed not to involuntarily
annex Taft Canyon prior to March 1, 1991.
John Sample, 4204 Trowbridge, stood up and indicated his opposition to the
annexations. He was on a fixed income and felt improvement costs would
impose a hardship, building permit prices would rise, property would be
harder to sell.
Mr. Waido explained the infrastructure would not require upgrading, the sub-
division could retain its present water and sewer arrangement unless the
residents wanted to upgrade or if sanitary systems failed and the health
department required upgrade. At that time a special assessment district
could be formed. Building permit costs should not affect market pricing.
Davis Fields, 4328 Picadilly, felt the City and developer had agreed to
annexing a funny lot to hinder the subdivisions ability to remain in the
County. The implications of this proposal should have been explained more
fully in the letter.
Mr. Waido pointed out these two annexations will not create an enclave as
there is an additional 3/4 mile of additional perimeter needed.
Mr. Fields indicated he understood the City's intend.
Mr. Waido went on to explain the City and the County created the Urban
Growth Agreement, of which Taft Canyon was a part, and wanted to annex the
UGA as soon as the properties were eligible. The County's responsibility
of providing urban services (road maintenance and police protection) would
then be released.
Member Edwards added that if Mr. Fields' concerns were not adequately
addressed the Board was merely making a recommendation to City Council and
he could discuss this with Council.
Member Crews felt two motions would be required on this item.
Member Strcm moved to approve Taft Canyon First Annexation and Zoning,
Member O'Dell seconded. Motion carried 7-0.
Member Brown moved to approve Taft Canyon Second Annexation and Zoning,
=am