Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPICKETT THIRD ANNEXATION AND ZONING 1.27.92 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 56 91B, C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESC� 0 • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 27, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ken Waido, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Patti Schneeberger, and Georgiana Taylor. Chairman Strom started the meeting with a presentation to two former P & Z Board Members. The plaques which were presented to these former members represented the service that those past members gave to the City of Fort Collins and to the Planning and Zoning Board. Margaret Gorman served on the P & Z Board from August 1990 to July 1991. David Edwards served on the Board from August of 1985 to February of 1989 and is now a member of the City • Council. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item I - Clarendon Hills Subdivision - Overall Development Plan, #35-86K; Item 2 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 6th Filing - Preliminary & Final, #35-86L; Item 3 - Kingston Woods PUD - Preliminary, #58-91; Item 4 - CONTINUED (02/24/92) - Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD, #28-89A; Item 5 - CONTINUED (02/24/92) - Mourning Subdivision, 2nd Replat, Lot 1 & 2 - Final, #13-91A; Item 6 - The English Ranch Subdivision, 1st Filing - Final, #75-86F; Item 7 - South Glen Subdivision, 1st Filing - Replat, #I10-79I; Item 8 - Spradley-Barr - Enlargement of a Building Containing a Non Conforming Use, #63-91; Item 9 - Resolution PZ92-1 - Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 10 - Resolution PZ92-2 - Endorsing and Accepting the Framework for Environmental Action; Item 11- K-2 Annexation and Zoning, #51-91A; Item 12 - Pinecone P.U.D. Rezoning, #60-91; Item 13 - Barnes Annexation and Zoning, #53-91A; Item 14 - Strobel Annexation and Zoning, #62-91A; and Item 15 - which was pulled for discussion by Member Cottier, Ute Farm Special Review - County Referral, #1-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 16 - Pickett Second Annexation and Zoning, #56-91, A, Item 17 - Pickett Third Annexation and Zoning, #56- 91B,C; Item 18 - Taco Bell Restaurant PUD - Final, #50-90A; Item 19 - CONTINUED (02/24/92) - Laurie Subdivision, PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #44-89E; and Item 20 - Woodridge PUD - Preliminary, #55-87E. P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. PICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #56-91A. AND MIOMW ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #56r91B.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 two 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 comer 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. 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. E 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 west 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 prohibit 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, #E56-91A. 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 PUD - FINAL, #50-90A 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 11