Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutANTON ANNEXATION & ZONING - 95-88, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (2)• • • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING November 21, 1988 The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of November 21, 1988 was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the meeting were Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Dave Edwards, Frank Groznik, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, and Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Linda Ripley, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Tcd Shepard, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Kayla Bal- lard, and Paul Eckman. Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which included: (1) Minutes of the October 24, 1988 and November 10, 1988 meeting; (2) #78-88 liorse- tooth/Timberline Property PUD - Master Plan; (3) #99-88VE Resolution PZ 88-7 - Vacation of Right -of -Way for a Sewer;, (4) #97-71VE Resolution PZ 88-9 - Vacalion of a Utility Easement in Brown Farm Ist Filing; (5) #79-88 Poudre River Business Park PUD - Master Plan; (6) #79-88A Poudre River Business park PUD, Phase I -Preliminary; (7) #146-79K Raintree Commercial PUD - • Tract H - Final; (8) #61-88B West Fossil Creek Zoning; (9) #61-88C West Fossil Creek PUD -Master Plan; (10) #95-88 Anton Annexation and Zoning; (1 t) #35-87 Fast Prospect Estates Extension Request - County Referral. tic then reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: (12) #96-88 South College Access Plan; (13) #58-87, A Noel Annexation and Zoning; (14) #8-82D Fox Meadows Business Park PUD -Master Plan; (15) #8-82E Fox Meadows Business Park PUD, Phase I - Preliminary; (16) #146-79K Raintree Commercial PUD - "Tract It - Final; (17) #73-88 Prospect Plaza PUD - Final; and (18) #50-85C Fort Collins Retail Center PUD - Pavilion PUD Pad A - Preliminary and Final. The Following items were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion: West Fossil Creek Zoning and Master Plan and Anton Annexation. N4embcr Shepard stated that in the October minutes, Davc Edwards was referred to as a Member of the Board of Larico. She corrected that statement to read he was a former Member of the Board. She also said the recommend- ;ition to the County Commissioners on County Referral item #10, Feast ProNpcct I stalcs Extension Request, was for denial. Member Kern said that the minutes stated that on page 7, it states, "Member K crn recommended him". He said he "commended." Member Klataske abstained from voting on Item #2. Member Edwards moved to approve Items 01, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 15. Member Kern second the motion. Vote carried 7-0. • Member Walker moved to approve Item 02. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Vote carried 6-0. Member Klataske abstained. P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988 • Page 5 Member Kern told the residents in the audience to also keep in touch with the Army Corps of Engineers. Member Edwards told the audience that the master plan stage was not specific but the process in the City did work with the neighborhood concerns. Member moved to approve the West Fossil Creek Zoning with a PUD condition. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve the West Fossil Creek Masler Plan with the condition that the zoning be approved by Council. Member Klataske seconded Me motion. Motion carried 7-0. ANTON ANNEXATION AND ZONING Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated this was a request to annex and zone approx- imately 2 acres, located south of Drake Rd. and west of Taft Hill Road, specifically lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Heineman Subdivision. He stated the reason for the annexation was that the owners, who lived on one of the lots, had septic problems and came to the city seeking help. He said the way to resolve utilities could be done by requesting an out -of -city service request or request the property be annexed. . lie said Staff met with the owners, explained the processes and since the end result would be annexation in either case, they decided to proceed with annexation of all four lots. The four lots were presently able to be annexed and in conformance with all the City policies, the UGA agreement, and state statutes for voluntary annexation. He stated that Staff was recommending approval. lie said that the zoning of the property was recommended by Staff was R-P. He said the R-P zoning would allow the construction of detached single family house on each of the vacant lot. The properties were also located along south Taft Hill Road which was a major arterial street. It would be expanded in the future. Staff did not believe that the potential zoning would allow the development of detached single family homes, the long term use of these properties might not be for single family development. He said the R-P zone would allow the proposal of a different type of land use and would require the PUD process but the applicant had no development plans at this point and any plans in the future must be submitted by the PUD process. Mr. Arnstedt, an adjacent property owner, stated he owned lot 10 in Heineman Subdivision and 10 acres west of the property. He believed the notification letter was sent out too late and there was not enough time to gather informa- tion for this hearing. He stated the map was incorrect, as the lots concerned with the annexation were lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, one of those owned by Shamrock Manor, and not the lots depicted on the map. He stated the Spring Creek was not shown going through his lot and it does. He then requested that the meeting be postponed to better prepare for the meeting_ P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988 Page 6 He stated that when he purchased the property, it was with the understanding the it would be for single family use only, and if this proposal went through, then Shamrock Manor, who owns the two lots north of his, would be able to do more than they were currently allowed to do. He said that when he came before the Board some years ago protesting that re -use of property (Shamrock Manor), it was to be a owner occupied item, an extended family with up to five elderly residents. The owners now do not live at the property. They proposed putting in 8 residents, all of which was in violation of what was passed. Fie did not believe the Anton family had an interest in this area, but he continues his interest. A portion of his property was designated for a right of way as a personal, private family dwelling right of egress, with 40+ cars traveling daily on this road. He stated that a postponement of this hearing for 30 days was required before he could produce documentation and abstracts to show to the Board. Mr. Waido, stated there was an error on the map which was sent out with the letter. He pointed out on the slide, the correct area to be annexed. He also stated the plat was correct, although the map was not. Mcmbcr Shepard asked what the county zoning was for that property. Mr. Waido believed it to be FA-1, Farming. Mr. Abrahams, property owner, stated it was written that the property would be for single family homes. He stated the map was incorrect in the location of Spring Creek in Lot 10. He said some neighbors have expressed their opposition to this annexation and also commented on the lateness of the notification letter. Ms. Garrett asked for a continuance of 30 days, so he too could collect more information. Mrs. Anton, the applicant, told the Board that the septic system failed before they bought the house and felt they had no other choice but to be annexed. Member Edwards asked the Legal Staff what "abstracts" were and if the Board should be concerned with covenants, and the potential commercial development. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Board should not be concerned with protective covenants, as City zoning issues were not dependent upon private agreements. Mcmbcr Walker asked if Mrs. Anton's only recourse was to be annexed. Mr. Waido told the Board that the County Health regulations state that if the septic system failed, and the system was within a certain distance from the public sewer system, the septic system cannot be replaced and the owners must link up to the sewer service. The owner could have requested Out -of -City • P & 2 Meeting — November 21, 1988 Page 7 service, whereby the applicant would have had to apply to the Water Board, P & Z Board and finally, the Council for approval and be annexed when eligible. The alternative process was annexation. Either way, the property would be annexed. Mr. Eckman stated that in reading the Code, the ordinance required a 7 day notice to adjacent owners of the hearing and the postmark indicated that there was only a 6 day notice. He suggested that the hearing on the project be tabled until December. Member Kern suggested a time frame, as the mail goes to Denver before being delivered in Fort Collins. Member Shepard asked if this delay would result in a hardship for the Antons. Mr. Waido stated that as long as they were in the process of annexation, the City would provide utility service to correct health problems. Member Shepard moved to table the Anton Annexation until December. Alem- ber Klataske seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. #86-88 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE ACCESS CONTROL PLAN • Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated the plan was prepared to develop the access potential on South College Avenue between Swallow and Trilby Roads. This was a combined effort of the City, County, and State. It took 5 months to develop the Plan. The Plan provided the City, County and State with the ability to plan for the movement of traffic on College. It ensured reason- able access to existing properties, new development and redevelopment. The process involved all the property owners in the area. Their concerns were incorporated as much as possible. The concerns and needs were balanced with proper traffic engineering principles as well as with the requirements of the State Access Code. The Board was to review both the Plan and Study. The Plan was the guiding document that staff would use for compliance. The Study provided detailed background information. An important element to note was that curb cuts to existing developments will not be closed as a result of this Plan. Rather, existing access would remain in place. He pointed out that if a redevelopment proposal was found to increase traffic more than 20%, then that development would be required to come into compliance with the Plan. Staff would continue to work with developers so as not to restrict development but at the same time adhere to the Plan. The Board was asked recommend approval to the City Council and authorize the City Manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State llighway Department to make this Plan the guiding document in dealing with future access questions. This was the first Access Control Plan of its kind in the State. 0 Mr. Ensdorff gave a brief summary of the Plan.