Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBERLINE ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 40 91, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 19, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, Rene Clements -Cooney, and Joe Carroll. Board members absent included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, and Jim Klataske. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waido, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson stated that in accordance with the bylaws, the Planning and Zoning Board will have to select a chairperson. Member Carroll nominated Laurie O'Dell to serve as the chairperson. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 4-0. MMr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item I - West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD, Final, Case #51-88D was pulled for discussion; Item 2 - Paragon Point, Phase 11, PUD, Final, Case #48-91C; Item 3 - Bridges II PUD, Amended Final, Case #132-79E; Item 4 - PZ92-15 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 5 - PZ92-16 Emergency Access Easement Vacation; Item 6 - Timberline Annexation and Zoning, Case #40-91 A was pulled for discussion; Item 7 - Nordick Annexation and Zoning, Case #44-92A; Item 8 - Timnath Pit Special Review, County Referral, Case #48-92; Item 9 - Eagle Lake Subdivision Third and Fourth Filings, County Referral, Case #3-91B; and Item 10 - DFC Farms PUD Master Plan and Preliminary, County Referral, Case #51-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - West Side Neighborhood Plan Rezonings, Case #37-90; and Item 12 - Harmony Market PUD, 1st Bank, Preliminary and Final, Case #54-87F. Member Cottier moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 2-5 and 7-10. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 4-0. L _� P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 5 the multi -family apartments. Mr. King who lives to the west of the property stated that his issues were more with joint access with future development and never raised the issue of lighting. Member O'Dell asked where the future access would be for the King Parcel. Mr. Shepard stated that it would be along the west property line and designed so that it would be aligned with the King Soopers loading dock. Member O'Dell asked that from the KFC parking lot would there be access to the King Parcel? Mr. Shepard stated that there was hope to accommodate that opportunity. Member Carroll moved to approve the West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD, Final with the condition recommended by staff and also with a second condition that the previously designed access to the east be reduced to bicycle/pedestrian access only with emergency access for Poudre Fire Authority emergency vehicles only. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked that if the Poudre Fire Authority feels that this access is unnecessary, should it be made as a permanent bicycle/pedestrian access without poles and chains. Mr. Shepard agreed that the access should be made permanent and suggested that "as required" should be added to the second condition of the motion. Member Carroll added "as required" to the second condition of the motion. Member Cottier seconded the addition. The motion to approve carried 4-0. x Mr. Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed annexation recommending approval. Mr. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the recommendation, for which the Board would consider for City Council, would be whether the property should be annexed. Since it is an enclave annexation it does not need to have any annexation agreement that accompanies it. If an annexation agreement is to accompany an annexation then there needs to be some valuable consideration given to the City by the property owner to support the agreement. r r P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 6 Basically, the City would not assess these Special Improvement District Assessments against the property owner. He stated that right-of-way dedication would be something that would support the contract. He stated that the Board should make the recommendation to the Council on the annexation and if an agreement is to be made by the City promising not to levy assessments that the agreement be supported by some valuable consideration flowing to the City. Member Carroll wanted clarification that the City is willing to waive the assessments for improvements and staff felt that was fine? Mr. Waido stated that the agreement is worded in such a way that the assessments on any urban improvements would not be made on Spring Creek Farms property until those properties come out of a farming operation and start to develop. They would only delay the period of time when those assessments would be made to the property. Member Carroll stated that if he were to own property to the south or west and does something with it, then normal City policy would be that he would pay part of the improvements and the neighbor to the north or east would pay the other part. Member Carroll stated that the City Attorney's Office stated that in essence this agreement would be an unsupported promise or such by the City and; therefore, the City ought to get something in return. Mr. Waido agreed with that theory. Member Carroll asked that staff isn't requesting anything in return? Mr. Waido stated that in order to enter the agreement to not assess them for urban improvements, the City needs to receive something. Member Carroll stated that is a legal opinion and that staff is not requesting anything and is simply asking for that on the advice of the atorney's office? Mr. Waido agreed. Mr. Peterson added that there is a history to the property owner's concern. He stated the people who own Spring Creek Farms had been on the outer edges of the City for a number of years. He stated that the owners of this piece of property owned property which was donated to Edora Park and they were tagged with a special assessment when urban development started. Ultimately the area is really on the fringe of urban development in this City. A new High School is being developed to the south and there will be ample water, sewer, electric and road P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 7 capacity that will be developed, which will force this property out of the farming mode. It is the owners intention to hold onto this property for farming until they are ready to sell. He pointed out that the Special Improvement District would only apply to the property until the use changes from farming. Member Carroll asked if the City would make the provision that without the requirement for the dedication of right-of-way that they do not oppose the annexation? Mr. Waido stated that they do not object to the annexation provided that the agreement covers the stipulations for which it does. He stated that the owners are still not very happy with the hunting aspect or the sales tax aspect. Member Cottier asked that at some point in the future when the urban improvement charges are assessed then why is anything being required in return now. She felt that the dedication of right- of-way seemed to be a pretty large contribution on their part to just get delayed charges. Mr. Eckman responded that in the dedication of all that right-of-way he did not think that it was legally necessary that it all be dedicated. He stated that it was the feeling that something of value be given to support the contract by way of consideration. Member Cottier asked if one dollar would suffice? Mr. Eckman stated that would be valuable consideration. The issue is the time value of money because eventually the assessments would go against some urbanized use there. The fear is if the City loads up some other property with assessments than that person who was assessed would legitimately complain. If the City takes the assessment on itself than the taxpayers could legitimately complain that there was no public purpose to support the City's taking on that debt. Mr. Eckman felt that without something being received by the City to support that public purpose than the contract could be challenged. Member O'Dell asked that at the point when they decide to develop some portion of the property than they would be required to do some road improvements and this whole condition would be null and void? Mr. Waido stated that it may not even come into effect that if there is no assessment on the property and they just have a development requirement to improve the street as part of development then the whole discussion could be mute. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 8 Member O'Dell asked that only in a situation where the need for Timberline Road be expanded and the need for the right-of-way proceeded the development of this property this condition would then go into effect? Mr. Waido responded that some type of improvement within existing right-of-way which would need to be put into a special improvement district verses a capital improvement program. Member O'Dell asked that a similar arrangement was made with this property owner in the past that this contract has come up or has this happened in any other parts of the City or Annexations? Mr. Waido replied that it is just the fact that these property owners have had experience with several conditions of this sort and seek to protect themselves. Member O'Dell asked that it is the Board's responsibility to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of the annexation from a land use stand point or whether it meets the rules of the State? Mr. Waido stated that a recommendation from the Board is appropriate. Member O'Dell asked if it was really the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Board to make these kind of decisions? Mr. Peterson replied that it was appropriate for the Board to comment on the recommendation made by staff, but it is ultimately City Council that needs to make the decision on whether the conditions of an annexation agreement are appropriate. Member Carroll moved to recommend to City Council the Timberline Annexation and Zoning for approval. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented that if staff and the landowner are in agreement that the assessment fees should not be paid until the property is assessed that is fine. He would suggest that if such an agreement was entered into perhaps the consideration coming from the landowner would be that he would not object to the annexation. Member O'Dell felt that because of the way the law is written on enclave annexations, it is not reasonable to say that the City would give people special consideration if they put up a fuss. She felt that what the City Attorney is recommending is more reasonable and equitable and that Council should look at some kind of trade or bargain to be reached with the landowners. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 9 Member Carroll stated that his understanding was that the agreement was a perfectly reasonable request and had no problem with it from a practical standpoint. Member Cottier felt that this project is beyond the Board's normal involvement and obviously it is an enclave and meets all the State laws for annexation. She stated that she does not feel comfortable in negotiating some agreement with respect to waiving future urban improvement charges. If the City feels that to be necessary it would be appropriately done by City Council and the legal department. The motion to recommend approval carried 4-0. WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REZONINGS. Case #37-90 Mr. Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed project recommending denial of the rezoning. Member Carroll stated that on February 25, 1991, the Board recommended to City Council that the west half of this area be rezoned to NCM, but the LDGS be added back into this particular zone. He asked if the recommendation has changed over what was decided a year and a half ago. Mr. Waido replied that nothing had changed. Member Carroll stated that he recalled spending hours on this project and asked if there has been a change of conditions or circumstances which have taken place since February 25, 1991, that would change his position toward this project. He asked what conditions if any have changed within the passage of a year? Mr. Waido stated that there have not been any substantial changes in the conditions that would alter the original decision. He stated that it has been recognized that zoning decisions at the neighborhood level does have opposition. Member Carroll asked if any changes have come in through the PUD process in the last year? Mr. Waido replied that a PUD has been submitted for the area dealing with potential changes. He felt, however, that does not enter into the analysis regarding the zoning issue. Member Clements -Cooney stated that this process went through public meetings, through the Planning and Zoning Board who made recommendations to Council which approved the plan as is and wanted to know why the Board rehearing about this project?