Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING 2.18.92 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - 56 91, A - REPORTS - FIRST READINGAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34 a-c DATE• February 18, 1992 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Ken Waido STAFF• SUBJECT: Items Related to the Pickett Second 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 requested zoning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 92-33 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Pickett Second Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 24 > 1992, Annexing Approximately 854 Square Feet, Known as the Pickett Second Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 25 , 1992, Zoning Approximately 854 Square Feet, Known as the Pickett Second Annexation, Into the R-P, Planned Residential, Zoning District. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 854 square feet located just east of the terminus of Spaulding Lane, south of Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the R-P, Planned Residential, District. The property is presently developed as a part of Lot #5 of the Terry Ridge Subdivision. The area to be annexed will be used as street right-of-way to provide access to the Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, a proposed residential development within the city limits. The property is currently zoned FA Farming in the County. This ' a voluntary annexation. APPLICANT: Gary Nordic OWNER: Eric Peterson 809 W. Harmony Road 1919 Westview Road Ft. Collins, Co 80525 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Gary Nordic, on behalf of the owner, Eric Peterson, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 854 square feet located just east of the terminus of Spaulding Lane, south of Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the R-P, Planned Residential, District. The property is presently developed as a part of Lot #5 of the Terry Ridge Subdivision. The area to be annexed will be used as street right-of-way to provide access to the Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, a proposed residential development within the city limits. The property is currently zoned FA Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. PICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #56-91A. AND PICKETT THIRD ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #56-91B.0 Mr. Waido felt it was in the best interest to combine for discussion purposes items 16 and 17. Chairman Strom agreed and stated that Ovo votes must be taken. Mr. Waido gave a description of the proposed projects. Staff recommended approval of both items of annexation and zoning. Member Walker stated that it seemed peculiar to have these two extremely small pieces of ground being annexed. He also questioned the circumstances regarding the annexation of the land. Mr. Waido stated that the circumstances go back to the conditions with which the Board placed on the approval of the Pheasant Ridge Subdivision. When the Board approved that subdivision there were four conditions. Two of them specifically were related to access to the property: the first condition dealing with access to the west from Spaulding Lane and the fourth condition related to having access to the northeast into Westview Road. In order to comply with the conditions that the Board put on for preliminary approval it was determined by the property owner and the developer that this was the method they would like to propose to address those conditions. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, spoke on behalf of Gary Nordic the applicant. Mr. Ward stated that the annexation was a technical solution to getting access to this property. The property controls the south half of the frontage at the end of Spaulding Lane, but the north half would have to clip the corner of the property to the north. Mr. Ward stated that the County objected to deeding the right-of-way due to the effect of a subdivided lot and would either need to go through an extensive replatting process through the County or it was suggested that since City streets were being dealt with and a condition that was placed by the Planning and Zoning Board, that we simply annex the right-of-way. Member Walker then clarified that both annexations would be used for street extensions for people to get into the properties. Mr. Ward stated that was correct according to the approved preliminary plan. 0 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Chairman Strom asked for public input. Mr. Jim Dixon, Lot 16 of Puebla Vista Estates, stated that the annexation of the property would place a street on both sides of his property and he was opposed to that. Mr. Dixon was not opposed to the subdivision itself, but he is opposed to where the street comes. Mr. Dixon would like to know about how far from his property the road would be placed and would there be any fencing or shrubbery put in to take away the impact of the traffic noise, and street lighting. Mr. Dale Moon, lives on Westview Road, stated that he was also opposed to putting the street through. Mr. Moon pointed out that when he moved there, the Homeowners Covenants prevented him from selling or giving a sliver the land to anyone for any kind of use and yet his neighbor across the street elected to give or sell a portion of his land to the developer which is in direct violation of the covenants. Mr. Moon would like to know what the reason was to annex this property, when a couple of months ago the Board approved the developer to proceed on through to the acreage. Mr. Mike Backlund, 2114 Westview Road, stated he was irritated that he did not receive any notification of the meetings. Mr. Backlund wanted to know what the date was of the last update of the master plan. Mr. Backlund bought his house four years ago and at that time there was a dedicated easement that went virtually straight through. Mr. Backlund understood that the County approved the abolishment of this easement because they simply did not want the increased traffic dumping onto Lemay. Mr. Backlund stated that he was told that a traffic study was done, but he has yet to see the results. Mr. Backlund referred to the Board meeting minutes of July 22, 1991, which Mr. Nordic stated that the traffic study showed minimum impact on the entire area and would not affect the quality of life. Mr. Backlund also stated that there would be a 400% increase in traffic which he felt would not be of minimum impact for that area. Mr. Backlund found that the original master plan showed access to this site through the south. Mr. Backlund stated that at a neighborhood meeting Mr. Nordic made it very clear that the reason why he did not approach this access method was simply the matter of economics. In order for Mr. Nordic to approach this access he would have to build a bridge over the existing canal and with the number of homes he was proposing it just would not be economically feasible. Mr. Backlund also felt that the reason behind Mr. Nordic not using Spaulding Road is due to the existing trailer park and French's Cut Flowers, which is not as eye catching as going through their development. 9 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Chairman Strom closed the public input session. Chairman Strom referenced Mr. Dixon's point of the alignment of the street relative to his property. Mr. Ward stated that he did not have a copy of the plans, but a point of clarification was that the street right-of-way swings to the east and the property line between Puebla Vista and Pheasant Ridge was not as far to the wept as shown on the map. The street angles over and clips through the north end of Pheasant Ridge without a double frontage to the lot in question, contrary to the way it was shown on the map. Chairman Strom then directed the question of covenants in Puebla Vista to Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman. Mr. Eckman felt it would not have been appropriate for the Board or any City Board to judge whether the covenants should permit or piohibit any particular land use. He stated that it would be for the courts to decide and not for a City Board or Commission. Chairman Strom stated that the annexation before the Board had no effect on enforcing covenants and any enforcement of those covenants would be between property owners. Mr. Carroll felt the question directed to the Board asked if they could state that the covenants would not apply, but he felt Mr. Moon thought that the Board would somehow do away with the covenants by approving this. Mr. Eckman stated that he did not feel that the Board would be able to do away with the covenants. He also felt that the covenants still stood and could be enforced. Chairman Strom stated to Mr. Backlund that he was sorry he was not informed of the previous meetings. Chairman Strom also noted to Mr. Backlund that the Board actually had a tremendous amount of information that was reviewed in the process of evaluating the development plan for this property. He stated that the Board was at the point now with an approved preliminary development plan of just strictly considering an annexation for two small pieces of ground. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of the Pickett Second Annexation and Zoning, #56-91A. Member Klataske seconded the motion. 10 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Member Carroll stated that the Board did go into great detail on this project back in July. The residents of the community presented their points, the staff gave the Board the history of the project, City boundaries were taken into consideration, the applicant made a presentation, and at that time the Board made a decision. The question that was presented was not to reconsider the position that the Board took back in July, but to approve the annexation. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Member Cottier moved to recommend approval of the Pickett Third Annexation and Zoning, #56-91B,C. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Mr. Waido stated that Items 17 and 18 were scheduled for the first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances at City Council on February 18, 1992. TACO BELL RESTAURANT PUP - FINAL 1150-90A Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval. Member Walker asked Mr. Shepard to review the details of the project. Mr. Shepard stated that the condition of approval relating to the hours of operation had been met with the exception of the Sunday evening closing time. The Board conditioned that the drive- thru and dining room both close at midnight. The applicant had requested that the drive-thru only stay open for one extra hour till 1 a.m. Mr. Shepard stated that staff recommended approval of this modification primarily based on the fact that the circulation out the drive-thru lane takes the customer out of the parking lot onto north bound College Avenue. The second condition was the condition of the temporary river rock. Mr. Shepard stated that there is a capital project going to take place around 1993 or 1994 that would effect the south side of the property. In order to document the condition, the applicant has agreed to place the following note on the landscape plan: "If, prior to the installation of non -living ground cover, it becomes evident that the intersection improvements will be delayed for two or more growing �J My name is Mike Backlund and I reside at 2114 Westview Rd. which is the corner house of Westview and Country Club Rd. My background is as an Engineer with Bechtel Group of Companies based in San Francisco. I am and have been a Construction Manager involved with construction projects such as hospitals, water treatment & sewage treatment plants, high rise and residential construction for the past 20 years. My first question is regarding the Master Plan that was accomplished regarding the area in question. What was the date of the last update? On my subdivision plat when I purchased my home there was an easement dedicated to the south of westview through what is now Puebla Vista. The county approved the abolishment of the easement because they did not want the increased traffic dumping onto Lemay. The number of homes in Puebla Vista is fewer than Mr. Nordicks plan, however the city has no problems dumping additional traffic onto Country Club Rd. What is the difference? Traffic is a great concern to all of us. There are a number of children that live on Westview and utilize'the street to play on. One of the reasons that I purchased my home is the fact that as a dead-end street I knew that traffic would be at a minimum. Even with the possibility of an easement through Puebla Vista the volume of traffic would be negligible. There is mention of a traffic study being accomplished. Who did this study? Who interpreted the study? Are copies available? In the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting minutes of July 22, 1991 it was noted that Mr. Nordick stated, "the traffic study showed minimum impact on the entire area and would not affect the quality of life". To my knowledge traffic studies dont normally asddress quality of life. I ask the Board what increase in traffic constitutes a minimum impact? 25%, 50%, 100%? My guess is that those living on a quiet residential street and had a 100% increase would consider that a significant impact on their lives. IN THIS CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APPROSIMENTLY A 400% INCREASE! This increase is only from the homes in the proposed Nordick subdivision, not from Spaulding etc should the proposed barricade be removed, or not placed at all. I believe the Master Plan of this area shows access to this property from the south on Redwood. Mr. Nordicks reluctance to utilize this planned access is purely made on economics. He has stated that it would be too expensive for him to build the bridge required to make the project feasible. Obviously the city had given this access enough thought to make it a part of their overall planning effort. Is it now the Planning and Zoning Boards obligation because of Mr. Nordicks profit picture to ignore previous Master Plans? It would appear to warrant a rethinking of the master plan of this area, before any more piece -meal decisions are made. A As has been suggested to Mr. Nordick in previous encounters with the Terry Ridge Homeowners Association we are not opposed to an easement through westview with the installation of a permanent fire barricade which will satisfy fire access requirements. This would place access to and from the Nordick property on Spaulding Lane which has curbs and is in good repair. This access would also eliminate the loop that would be created by homeowners in the Nordick proposal in trying to get to College Ave. Lets look at the real reason Mr. Nordick is against utilizing Spaulding Lane as access. Simply stated he does not want prospective buyers to have to pass by the trailer park on the west end of Spaulding and the greenhouses of Frenchs Cut Flowers on the east end. I know that the City has a problem with the traffic from this subdivision entering the intersection of Hiway 1 and Spaulding. It appears that because this intersection which was and is planned for modification has not been accomplished on a timely basis, traffic will flow down westview rd as the lesser of two evils. In closing I would only hope that the Planning and Zoning Boards decisions are made void of prejudice and discrimination and not swayed by the developers bottom line, or the desire to simply increase the tax base of Fort Collins. It seems logical to me that as a Planning and Zoning Board menber I would want a more up to date master plan of the area before making many of these types of individual decisions. ITEM: PICKETT SECOND & THIRD Annexation & Zoning ,1UMBER: 56-91, A 56-91B, C DATE: February 18, 1992 2 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 a-c 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 consider the annexation of 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 Pickett Annexation to the south. The surrounding zoning and existing land uses are as follows: N: FA, Farming, Terry Ridge Subdivision E: FA, Farming, Terry Ridge Subdivision and Puebla Vista Estates Subdivision S: R-P, Planned Residential, undeveloped W: FA, Farming, non -subdivision development The requested zoning for this annexation is the R-P, Planned Residential District. The R-P District designation is for areas planned as a unit to provide a variation in use and building placement. The area to be annexed will provide street right-of-way access to property which will eventually develop as the Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision located within the city limits. On July 22, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a preliminary plan for the Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, a request for 25 single-family lots located on 19.23 acres. The Board voted 6-0 to approve the preliminary plan with the following four conditions: 1. A 46 foot wide dedicated right-of-way (ROW) be secured by the developer/owner of Pheasant Ridge Estates from the owners of Lot #5 prior to final approval. This access easement must be accepted by the County and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to recording of Pheasant Ridge Estates subdivision plat. 2. The determination of responsibility for perpetual maintenance of the two detention ponds be made by the City Stormwater Utility prior to final approval. 3. A landscape plan for the on -site detention ponds be submitted to the City for final review. 4. Access from Spaulding Lane be reviewed by the Board with recommendations from staff at the time of final. This annexation will assist the developer of the Pheasant Ridge Estates subdivision in fulfilling condition #4 above. Findings 1. 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 to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On January 7, 1992, the City Council approved a resolution which accepts the annexation petition and determines that the petition is in compliance DATE: February 18, 1992 3 i ITEM NUMBER: 34 a-c with State law. The resolution also initiates the annexation process for this property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested R-P, Planned Residential, District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular meeting on January 27, 1992, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed annexation and requested zoning. Several area property -owners raised questions and concerns with the annexation at the Board's hearing. Most of the questions and concerns related to the proposed Pheasant Ridge Subdivision, approved by the Board in July of 1991, and not with the annexation per se. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. RESOLUTION 92- 33 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE PICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of Fort Collins for property to be known as the Pickett Second Annexation; and WHEREAS, following Notice given as required by law, the Council has held a hearing on said annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That the Council of the City of Fort Collins hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 2. That the Council hereby finds that there is at least one -sixth (1/6) contiguity between the City and the property seeking annexation; that a community of interest exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City. Section 3. That the Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and conditions to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 4. That the Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act. Section 5. That the Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the Pickett Second Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 18th day of February, A.D. 1992. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 24, 1992 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE PICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 92-2, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Council does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the following described property, to wit: A Tract of land situate in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which, considering the West Line of said Southeast 1/4 as bearing N 00°15'50" W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N 00°15'50" W 1322.95 feet, and again N 89057'40" E 526.07 feet from the South 1/4 Corner of said Section 36 and run thence NORTH 30.00 feet; thence N 89057'40" E 4.91 feet; thence along the arc of a 30.00 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 47.12 feet, the long chord of which bears S 45°02'20" E 42.43 feet; thence S 89057'40" W 34.93 feet to the point of beginning, containing 854 square feet, more or less; be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Pickett Second Annexation. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City 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 property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136 (3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. �J i Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of February, A.D. 1992, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of March, A.D. 1992. ATTEST: ty Passed and adopted on final reading this 3rd day of March, A.D. 1992. ATTEST: City Clerk r ORDINANCE NO. 25, 1992 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE PICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning District Map adopted pursuant to Chapter 29 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 Pickett Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the R-P, Planned Residential Zoning District: A Tract of land situate in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which, considering the West Line of said Southeast 1/4 as bearing N 00015'50" W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N 00°15'50" W 1322.95 feet, and again N 89057'40" E 526.07 feet from the South 1/4 Corner of said Section 36 and run thence NORTH 30.00 feet; thence N 89°57'40" E 4.91 feet; thence along the arc of a 30.00 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 47.12 feet, the long chord of which bears S 45002'20" E 42.43 feet; thence S 89057'40" W 34.93 feet to the point of beginning, containing 854 square feet, more or less. Section 2. That the Director of Engineering 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 18th day of February, A.D. 1992, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of March, A.D. 1992. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 3rd day of March, A.D. 1992. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk �PUBU$f I ON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that, on February 18, 1992, at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing on the zoning of land known as the Pickett Second Annexation. the Pickett Second Annexation is described as follows: A Tract of land situate in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which, considering the West Line of said Southeast 1/4 as bearing N 00°15'50" W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N 00'15'50" W 1322.95 feet, and again N 89°57'40" E 526.07 feet from the South 1/4 Corner of said Section 36 and run thence NORTH 30.00 feet; thence N 89°57'40" E 4.91 feet; thence along the arc of a 30.00 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 47.12 feet, the long chord of which bears S 45°02'20" E 42.43 feet; thence S 89057'40" W 34.93 feet to the point of beginning, containing 854 square feet, more or less. The property owner has requested, and the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended, that said Annexation be placed in the R-P, Planned Residential Zoning District. Dated this llth day of February, A.D. 1992. City Clerk