Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ADRIAN ANNEXATION & ZONING - 42-03 - REPORTS - FIRST READING
Steve Olt =Adrian Annexation and Zoning #42-03 From: Leonard & Simi <leo.simi@juno.com> To: <soh@fcgov.com> Date: 2/13104 3:41PM Subject: Adrian Annexation and Zoning #42-03 Hi Steve, I speak on behalf of the neighbors in the 2600 block of West Vine Drive, to the west of the proposed development site at 2333 West Vine Drive, in that we object to the proposed annexation. The West Vine Drive area, west of Taft Hill Road, is one of single-family homes, country -like and farm -like in nature. The proposed annexation, zoning change to LMN, and development is contrary to that country feeling and would negatively impact the area with increased traffic and potentially increased crime. We urge you to review the project carefully when making your recommendations. Sincerely, Polly Bennett & Leonard Pettus Tami & Matt Flach Bill & Irene Dieter Heather Dieter Bartman and Tom Wilson Connie Murray Denny and Sovick and undoubtedly the majority of the other residents in the area The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBandl Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Ps ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE Q , SIGNED CITY _ F'� • C� // � ,1' fib. �Sot�� �/ � ADDRESS (STREET AN NUMBER) DATE . l — 3 g/ PRINTED NAME CITY SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 [ � JON� L�/Y.E /�/-�s�e%➢i GPS � .r��.a�ia 1�.t. � �o// SIGNED c �14�0 l PRINTED NAME df SIGNATURE CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ft SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY PAGE 8 OF 10 6�,m IN /86 po `lr 41) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) PRINTED NAME CITY DATE SIGNED I�t►I .S�a 0749 roy 42) S T ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINT NAME CITY ..( ,'.Rr T J, h %i n Z_ jg_ 64 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE L a3 p 7. P& SIGNED ` GT zl��/ay PRINTED NAME CITY 1Q; k, 5�.„ � s �I,���. 44) SIG TU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBERy GATE fJ%-2J� 2 �/, =� J rF�IITTY SIGNED PRINTED NAME 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED - 416 a 631 p u.00D .eo PRINTED NAME CITY ,*!Qznit/ G 6ohga dv t o L as "sue 4)v 40)) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE slcNeD PRINTED NAME CITY 47) SIGNATURE ADDRESS( TREET AND NUMBER) GATE a7%SI/Nv6f"V*l QED NAME CITY PAGE 8 UP 10 v 41 IGNALT1UREf� , . ` ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE y� \ W 1, 32-A (,� %Ltn SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ' mE1� 1Z 11� ,i,e. 42) SIGNATURE X�o PRINTED NAME /o/ /01 /03 ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) CITY DATE SIGNED rloNa p' �igrfc FTC_ "fig`"°9i 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 717 41 Zr SIGNED PRINTE NAME CITY &Pul d ;4. L&h s: may 4 ) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE / SIGNED wm cjn � /-r J ,51, cl Y . PR TED NAME CITY 45) SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME . I 4 1' f 46) SIGNAT RE PRINTED NAME 47) SJGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY �T l:oLIS -18-0 z ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY / ia% ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) CITY �f�iRLE./ L �Su2c.,ETT 147- lo' 1114"s PAGE 8 OF 10 DATE SIGNED .2 141f � 48) S TU E ADDRESS (STRE AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED tje 2 - PR D NAME CITY 49) SIGN T E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 9-3 PRINTED NAME 1 CITY• Lana I?2mg n r C 50) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE gX 9,30 q uj , V l� SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 51 SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNE • Y � D Q � J a�/ 'S UK J PRINTED NAME CITY _ on 52) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE / SIGN 9/ �( .P INTED NAME CITY v 'lj• to 3 l /�• ,C�i JL cve>r�-/ �1, 53) I NAT E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE (� 615 . B�✓ilu3fA.i 51 NE 7� /�LZ('S�p4 PRINT D NAME CITY co 54) IGNATU ADDRE S (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE i 1 . SIGNED PRINTED NAME ._._ CITY,b4 ►,1 Ake• �M�M L� , I u PAGE 9 OF 10 SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE IAL&- . / �, / 1 � i r _ - _ 'r J% / SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY .611 i50b j 60 a �y 56) S NATUR ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE Glr`�Crew,c 30 N, j8r;arwocrJ lZ� SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY Pao( MawrAlew"cr %off 6of fibhs 60 V05 2-1 2 i6%el 57)SG TU E P TED kME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) .23/ Ir A(V44 f .lol CITY DATE SIGNED Jef e .�'c6NLe 1 %f&JAS Gd SFDS"i.�-/5-04% 58) SIGNATURE �j Ann k,ANW,�Ikc 6 PRINTED NAME 5?9 I NA LRE P ED NAME jkvJT) OCLODAky '/( eo),SJGNATURE PRINTED NAME �i1�11[ r^� �/` •l�� y 61) SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY Z ��- rC ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE CITY Ra y,N, ��'i ��-�� c' o // / i, f PAGE 10 OF 10 I 41) SIGNA URE - ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED �v PRI CITY �/ o �'Oo,� , �� 42) S4 URE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED P TED NAME CITY 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE W ii& SIGNED }� aAA& W U.r'kli.. PRINTED NAME CITY w 7ni'rc �L8 4k � �a1 -Ib cq 44) SIGNATURE / /ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE P SIGNED PRINTED NAME / CITY 45 SIGNATU E r �ADDRESSEET AND NUMBER)D� 92 �� « a TED NA CITY a4 :4 CD BoS�d j__ SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET �nIAND NUMBER) DATE 44011 al[,L7�f'� 1p� �. tir�'KryctY a SIGNED PRINTED ME CITY u— 47) S GNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 / ,// �, TIED PRINTED NAME CITY PAGE 8 UP 10 D 7�-2. PRINTED NAME ADDRESS ( REET AND N LLURER) DATE 6(3 • SIGNED ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE b 13 SIGNED CITY ������� e Foe'�-C'011i►>> CO $0SAA - � Y 43)MA, ADDRE S (STREET AN NUMBER) DATE r2 I & �S SIGNED PRINTED NAME > CITY 44) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE PRINTED NAME CITY 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE \,�Z; PA fil � SIGNED a! -A -aft PRINTED NAME CITY 46) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE fie% Q P63(.0 n Br•icu• wvaol /� SIGNED 1 PRINTED NAME 11 CITY W4%1 o- D. Bii/l1/JGlbr77l- Fbrf ro /,n5 0 „�05�2 2 IL•oy 47) IGN RESSA'TTRE ANyDD NUMBER) DATE VLC I V 1 � a{ �..� o"ED PRINTED NAME CITY PAGE 8 OF 10 IGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGN D 4 PRINTED NAME CITY S26.,o L (d G- 35) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 2 3 2. 6 � * ''ll F/_ a 4A SIGNED �' �� C U.P IVL / /. � e.I/MS PRINTED/NAME 1 CITY �cli9f}�Z D . ust rSArnc rocs A-6ev� (Y SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 37) SIGNATU ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED P IN D NAME CITY 38) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE b V • SIGNED PRINTED NAME,/, CITY 111 O� SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE �9 PRINTED NAME CITY M no 40) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) a i PRINTED NAME CITY DATE SIGNED Ff • co/1�� PAGE 7 OF 10 ,J 41) SIGNA RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 146�v— SIGN D 2 lee y S% PRI TED NAME � CITY 42 A URE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SZN�,D �.,� � P'!! NAME CITY S8 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 2.21 SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 44) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE l SIGNED CITY ADDRESS -(STREET AND NUMBER) DATE CITY 47) S 7s l G V GNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1� p ( n ! �A SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY GtM�$�� PAGE 8 OF 10 41) TURE ADDRESS (STREET AND N BER) DATE A, h /1, M, it ir x e,�i57 "&"e�,cG SIGNED a-.6 �.� PRIN FD NAME CITY re _ `4SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE lbC]aED PRINTED NAME CITY S� NATURE 19 4YraYwrli PRINTED NAME p ,gf4..RG� ! %AIDS HAQ, ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) A306 P �rvs �� CITY P&A-R.S C:r DATE SIGNED G � 44)XSIRE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE S^ PRI ED NAME CITY 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED S3PRINTED ;?K� � �-- /,�y !d • v4k 5T. NAME CITY Ili/G'%LIiEL %�!/i3 �%' 46) SI NATUR r ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 2 t4i4t L t" PRINTED NAME CITY 47) SIG ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE S!PED PRINTED NAME 1 ► /c� v4 * CITY �c '`PAGE 8 OF 10 wo OR t7 . SIGNATUR __ _ ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE _ L SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY cv414,2 4SIGNATU�R�E) hK PRINTED NAME 4Zul& iffi SI ATURE PH �� ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY jj7j± &II� ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY t 614 XJ Rya tif- W/12e T 1Al SIGNATURE PRINTED NA E gicH IOUA/G AUUKt,J (J I Ktt I ANU NUMt3tK) UP1 I t SIGNED CITY 3/6 Al. L1 P /-A SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE l.SIGNED CITY a/is ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY SIGNATU71RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY �1L I/V�1!lR)n N NQ�SD'�drf Cpll %nS co L PAGE 8 UI' 10 Lill 3-7- 1 35 No Af( 441%)� SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 0410 PRINTED NAME CITY a ,-XZPf%k _ .1�z< Cam,/J i A.5 42) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE ZZ S/a X/ SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE QRu low �.4 dcZzos-- 4-PrLaa, c 1 Al,. J6, 44 SIGNED PRINTED NAMECITY 44) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND UMBER) DATE r SIGNED P4JN T E D N A14E CITY rs-/?-o54 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE ���Jc - LI l 6 N . i!ll ��i ,,A SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY Rn�J 0SCflN W 151x,67lA/A'U FT COLD1V,5S. ADDRESS (STREIER AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED Ad CITY ,DDRESMTREET AND NUMBER) DATE g � n SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY YALLIEk - i -?/V D� PAGE 8O 10 27) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE Q/',,,01v`=ky�/a /J r SIGNED . , '�7/ ( 2CJ PR�D NAME CITY ue 28) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) Ai ,�� SIGNED 2� PRINTED NAME CITY P % aIlr3 29SIGNATURE 3o PRINTED NAME! 1 30) 3 PFi NTED NAME <m1- to 32 3-3 3 l ►I, I �1 f 1 �w�t 33) SIG • URE tq ,A R TR�ET AND NUMBER) k / S' "U ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE S 3a oalQ Q /, SIGNED CITY eo go al 0l / ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE �11n � v-y SIGNED CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED �r,�Gi Dr• CITY S r ADDRESS (TREETAND NUUMBE%R)�/ % D TE 5�? /�,��.���• �i C� l(X(Gk.SIaSIGNEQ��/� PRINTED NAME CITY PAGE 6 OF 10 20) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 4g SIGNED 2 PRINTED NAME CITY 21) SIGNATURE p ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE -a-�.�....✓ /� s�..� y/1. A% , Z Jn _ SIGNED 2z PRINTED NAME CITY Pa"1"�icia �`Foac� �a+�- I;r{,L,.., � •(Y•d 2 22) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE '�v\ ►`d,r'�- C�a1�cu� i SIGNED PRINTED NA CITY 23LSIGNATU ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED L--c—%6 TED NAME CITY CA 24) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED pr a i y-OS' 2 S PRINTED NAME CITY 114A Sand liy l= _ knit 649//1h-f 255))�S�IGNAT RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE -!/ ► �(f�1� SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 26) G TU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE PRINTED NAME CITY w. ,I�.1M=t i r Yu� V�/-,I PAGE 5 OF 10 14 /( 13) SIGNATURE S PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) Imply-IF-am1 i1 CITY ir DATE SIGNED *//ay 14) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE % SIG ED PRINTED NAME CITY �, Shnra-. Cr,/hn-5 15) SIGNATUR ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE PRINTED NAME CITY ,�cz 0-0/// 16)nSIGNAT __ . ADDRESS (STREETDATE / AND NUMBER) ^ R-/ SIGNED ah q'DY �L PRINTED NAME CITY 1n ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE R `�ZG� � �V ..�►►�«� la p,ti SIGNED PRINTFED NAME CITY � /� J �/O� TIL It � 1 '(4 -po r � ld (15 l rf` 18) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE i9 20 PRINTED NAME PRINTED NAME CITY 2 11 ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY PAGE 4 OF 10 6) S GNATU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED dui 20 fJO L.All -t>, PRINTED NAME CITY 7)�SIGNATURE / ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE S lw /t/' I w.��o„r/a- ,,� SIGNED 8 PRINTED NAME CITY G(,.rr/ems �4rr/S01'� _foi-T jr 2-�S-ayr 8),SSIIGNATURE P 7' ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) S2 S N. Z M pAl-A Q IT DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY tFs-fge 0,410N roRi- &VlAiAIT 9) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1� 4N PRINTED NAME (Dr- CITY SIGNED (-(6tr;a�Ka W�ul;(er *ord �rs((itcS, CO QL(40St/o 10) SIIG1,N�A,T,UgE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE —�[ V "".li�!(G..—�lt��% �f L .S � J�,SIGNED PRINTED NAME W 1 YY/f12l" _�e �L if/!L !� I/�M�L'/ _roe � G/zo�v l a SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED og/iy/o Y PRINTED NAME CITY dRQsi I j en 12) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE ao�--- (�00 p- SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ►•.� S�-2� aG-2 va-r i.m S z ILL PAGE 30F 10 l PETITION REPRESENTATIVES NAME ADDRESS 1) Steven L. Schaeffer 601 N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 2) Sandy Knox, 2309 W. Vine Drive, Fort Collins, CO 3) Shelly Neth, N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 4) Sharon Stockton, 613 N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 5) John Angellotti, 605 N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 1) SIG TORE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED I PRINTED NAME CITY ATE✓EAl � . �/1iA�F,F� FJ '/E-T C©GG�/iUS /�% FED 2) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) L 3 z8 TED NAME Q CITY 4P ht l2 \1 F 1341 P a F' l{ / Fi P.r7LWlVCyou_22Lf1f V e3 Fj V 3) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE AND 5) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) PRINTED NAME CITY PAGE 2 OF 10 DATE SIGNED lel ! zf TF8 0 �j DATE SIGNED DATE SIGNED 1 4 PETITION ' TO: The City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board TO: The City Council of the City of Fort Collins GENERAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE We the undersigned are against the proposed "Adrian Annexation" at West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive and request that the annexation proposal be halted immediately. With reason to believe that such annexation into the City of Fort Collins under the proposed LMN zoning district, without major limitations to the number and style/type of buildings, would impose dangers to human health and safety in the neighborhood not being limited to: ♦ Causing harm to children in our neighborhood who routinely play in the streets. ♦ Increase Population density far beyond our present lifestyle. ♦ Destroy homes and property with imminent run-off problems created by lack of proper storm water drainage. ♦ Create dangerous traffic situations and congestion that ultimately will burden us financially and put our safety and welfare at risk ♦ Increase the amount of air Pollution in our homes. ♦ Increase noise. congestion and light pollution in our area. ♦ Increase crime in our neighborhood due to increase in traffic flow and stress due to high -density social imposition. ♦ Be in dissonance with our neighborhood architecture and character, thus going against the city code and devaluing our oronerties! ♦ Ruin our quality of life, as we know it. We request that any rezoning and/or development proposal be halted immediately until the site can be fully evaluated in terms of: 1) A thorough traffic study to include vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic on both West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. Traffic flow on Cherry Street between North Impala Drive and Irish Drive and on Irish Drive shall also be studied simultaneously. This study must be conducted during weeks when school is in session in order to be valid. 2) A thorough and complete study of storm water drainage regarding the proposed site and neighboring properties including those located on North Impala Drive, and those properties directly south and east of the proposed site. 3) A study and evaluation of any future development proposal to determine that any proposed architectural design and construction is carried out with respect to Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code so that any proposed development maintains the architectural character and integrity of the neighborhood. PAGE 1 OF Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 11 dRAFT Member Schmidt also agreed with Members Craig and Lingle. She sees the larger parcels of LMN and when you have a larger parcel of LMN, you have more flexibility where you can buffer and mitigate impacts. When you are just talking about a little two -acre piece you are more limited and it makes the impacts harder. She thought the RL would be more appropriate for this particular piece. Director Gloss wanted to clarify some statements made earlier regarding the density on this property. The LMN zoning district has a minimum density of 5 units per acre and a maximum density of 8 units per acre. Potentially, if it is an affordable housing project, it could be up to 12 units per acre. The Green Acre subdivision to the south is 5 units per acre. So to make it comparable, the developer would have to choose to do the lower end of the density range in order for the density to match the character to the south. Member Carpenter asked what the density would be for RL. Director Gloss replied that it would be slightly less than the parcels to the south and more comparable to the parcels that are immediately to the west. Planner Olt added that in the LMN zoning district there is a qualification, there is an exception to the minimum density in that this property is in the city's defined infill area. In that infill area, and a property is less than 20 acres in size, there is no minimum density requirement, so they are not required, if they do not want to, to meet that minimum 5 units per acre. They could do 1 single family residence if they wanted to. They still have a maximum density of 8 units per acre gross area unless it is affordable housing which could be up to 12. This property could develop anywhere from 1 to 20 units. The 20 dwelling units would be if it was an affordable housing project. The motion failed 4-2 with Members Carpenter, Lingle, Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council on the Adrian Zoning of RL, including the neighborhood sign district. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 10 RAFT Vice Chair Meyer reminded the citizens in the audience that they were not the final authority in this and that the Planning and Zoning Board was only making a recommendation to City Council. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council for the Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 that the property be annexed into the city of Fort Collins based on the findings on page 3 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Chairperson Torgerson not voting due to a conflict of interest. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council for Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Zoning District as well as the property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Member Carpenter seconded the motion.; Member Craig commented that she would not be supporting the LMN. After what she has heard tonight and in looking at the area, she feels that she could request RL instead. This area sounds like it has a lot of issues. Even developed at RL, it is going to impact the neighbors, but she thought they would be willing to work at that. When talking about 16 units, she felt that there was a very negative impact in that and she felt that when we did put in the underlying RL zones, we did it with the thought of existing neighborhoods. She was getting the feeling tonight that County people are going to think city people are pretty awful. We involuntarily annex, we force high density down their throats, and we really have not done very many positive things for County residents. She did not think the city is going to suffer in any way shape or form if this was zoned RL. Member Lingle agreed with Member Craig. In looking at the findings, he did not agree with number 4 that it is appropriate for the site based on adjacent zoning. He felt that RL would be more appropriate. Member Gavaldon would be supporting the motion. In looking at the map, there is LMN on the fringe, on the east and south quadrants. There is also LMN over by Sunset. He believes the PDP will address the residents concerns. The . residents also have a golden opportunity to go to Council if they don't agree with this Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 9 Mr. Jones replied that there is a drawing that is anticipated to be submitted as a development plan, but we would have to wait until it is annexed before the staff has jurisdiction to review that plan. Member Schmidt asked how many units were on the plan. Mr. Jones replied 16. Member Gavaldon thought the Board was deviating from the process and asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to review for the Board the criteria under which they have to make their decision. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the criteria for annexation and zoning for the Board. Member Lingle asked what the density was of the surrounding existing developments are. Planner Olt replied that looking at it from the more rural properties to the east, west and south, there are two parcels to the west just across Impala Drive that are both 1/3 acre in size. To the south there is a property that is about an acre and a half in size. To the east there are two parcels that are still a meets and boundaries description, lands that are not subdivided, one being 1/3 acre, the other 1 % acre in size. As you get to the platted subdivisions in Larimer County to the southeast and west, you are looking at lot sizes to the south of 10,000 to 13,000 s.f., to the west 6,500 to 7,500 s.f., and the subdivision to the east 10,000 to 12,000 s.f. in size. To put that in context, if this were zoned LMN, you could have a range of 8 to 13 dwelling units, as standard residential development. Depending on the amount of road network that would have to be included on the site, that would provide for lots anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 s.f. in size. By comparison, a development in the LMN district could be commensurate with the platted subdivision lands to the west, south and east, excluding the larger parcels that are directly adjacent to this property. Those densities would equate to probably three to five dwelling units per acre in those existing subdivisions in Larimer County. Member Schmidt asked if a Project Development Plan came in on this property what would they be required to mitigate as far as the drainage concerns go. Planner Olt replied that Stormwater Adequate Public Facilities are taken into consideration and those do have to be met before any final plan for any development proposal could be approved. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 8 Member Craig stated that what she was hearing from the neighbors is that their biggest concern is density and with the total deficiency in infrastructure there, why are we looking at LMN. This property is totally deficient in infrastructure and we are bringing in this high density city project that can't possibly address all of these concems on less than two acres. Basil Harridan, Stormwater Utility responded to the neighbors concerns and. stated that as the neighbors have stated, the area is deficient in storm drainage facilities. It was developed in the County but the city does have a long-term solution to bring in a major channel and put in a regional detention on the Forney property. That is the long term solution, but how that will address this particular area and how it will get to the channel through the deficient street, there would have to be a storm sewer put in and retrofit improvements. Currently the infrastructure is not there. Since we don't have a PDP to look at, he cannot address the stormwater issue on this particular property. He is looking at it as a whole basin perspective, the West Vine Basin. That is what they put Master Plans together for. Member Schmidt asked about the future and was he talking 5 years or 20 years. Mr. Harridan replied it was hard because some of it is driven by development. Sometimes we are moved by development and resources are shifted to accommodate that. If there is enough development pressure it could be in 5 years. His sense is that we would do something of a more temporary nature, a short-term fix that will allow these developments to go through before we do the major improvements. There also maybe some interim improvements that would provide some relief, but that is speculation. Member Schmidt asked if this was zoned RL, what would be the maximum density. Mr. Jones replied that the RL does not specify density in units per acre. It is minimum lot size 6,000 s.f. You can have larger lots than 6,000 s.f. but to make it as dense as possible it is a minimum of 6,000 s.f. lots. In this case it would be 5 units per acre. LMN could go up to 8 units per acre. Planner Olt added that it would be a net density of 5 units per acre and 8 gross units per acre. Member Schmidt asked about a conceptual design for this property. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 7 Sharon Stockton, 613 North Impala was concerned with the zoning designation and pushing the LMN for future development. Like Ms. Knox stated, all the property is developed other than a couple of properties. The type of development that they have seen proposed there will be no other development unless other houses are tom out. It is an established neighborhood and there is no more room for anything like what is being proposed and it does not make a lot of sense for LMN. Fred Winkler, 624 Irish Drive stated that the reason he has lived a century there is because he enjoys the rural atmosphere there and he opposes this development because it will be detrimental to the character of their community. Ann Rockisnick, 2318 Plains Court stated that she does not want water going through her back yard because she has animals and she does not want to provide a swimming pool for them. Public Input Closed Mr. Jones rebutted that most of the comments heard tonight are very valid comments, however what we are talking about tonight is just a change in jurisdiction from the County to the city and the second part is what to zone the property. The concerns raised tonight are all development review related concerns that once a Project Development Plan is applied for, each and every one of those concerns would have to be addressed before it could gain development approval. Just changing the jurisdiction to the city of Fort Collins gives the city and the development review staff the chance to apply the standards. When it is under the County's jurisdiction, the city does not have the ability to do anything with reviewing the property. Also Ms. Knox had a question on something he had presented earlier. He clarified that the two examples were in the city in 1997 when the new Structure Plan was adopted, whereas this portion was in the County and is still in the. County, therefore the city had no jurisdiction to designate it one or the other zone, it has to wait until it is annexed. Member Craig asked if this property were to be developed in the County today, what would be the density. Mr. Jones replied that FA zoning is 2 units per acre. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 6 DRAF T neighborhood citizens have signed a petition (Exhibit A) against this imposition and potential cause for trouble for an otherwise terrific residential neighborhood. Sandra Knox, 2309 West Vine Drive questioned Mr. Jones's statement of how all developed properties were put in the RL zoning district in 1997. They were developed then and she asked why they were put into the LMN zoning district. Ms. Knox stated that she was opposed to the Adrian Annexation for two reasons. First is the stormwater issue and her big issue with that is whether her field will be flooded. Currently the water flow is straight down into her property. She has been flooded numerous times from that field. She wants to find out where the water is going to go. She was concerned that if there is a retention pond about West Nile Virus because they have horses and they don't need more mosquitoes. Another concern that Ms. Knox has is that she has a well on her property next to this annexation. She is concerned about the groundwater and the water table. Her property values will go to zero if she cannot use her well. She has an acre and a half that she has to water. She just read in the paper that someone with an acre and a half, with,city water, cost them $1,000 a month. She is greatly concerned about her well and that there should be a complete study done to cover both the stormwater issues and the water issues before deciding annexation. She stated that the Land Use Code states, "that the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage." It says in the Land Use Code that adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage shall be provided. Paul Waxeman, 416 North Impala stated that he was concerned with the condition of the road. He stated that the County or the city does not help fix the - road and there are holes already in the road and with the exit traffic the holes will only get worse. He also concurred with previous speakers concerns. John Justice, 2318 Plains Court stated that he also was concerned with the drainage flowing onto his property. He has a small culvert for stormwater for the development that is there right now. His concern is the additional water that will occur with asphalt and concrete he will have an erosion issue because he has an undeveloped field on his north side that is about a foot higher than his property. If stormwater does flow through there it will be more that he is able to handle and he will have an erosion issue. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 5 DRAFr There is also a stormwater issue in this area and they request that the stormwater drainage issues be resolved before any such annexation is carried out. The proposed annexation site is not presently developed, which means that the precipitation soaks into the ground until its saturation point. After which, it runs off to the south. The proposed units to go on this property, in which they have seen drawings, will cover most of the site with concrete, asphalt and shingles and will impose significant runoff. This runoff, whether detained or retained, or allowed to simply run away, proposes an imminent danger to the residential property directly due south. There is no curb and gutter there right now and if curb and gutter were to go in, you will pose an imminent flooding danger to six residents on Impala Drive because there is no slope to the street. There are already flooding issues in the West Vine Basin. There are no storm drains on Impala Drive. There street cannot handle anymore and as residents of North Impala Drive do not want to stand for this imposed threat and danger of flooding to their homes. Has the staff studied the stormwater issues regarding this annexation? There is no mention of this in the staff report. Another major issue they are looking at regarding the traffic study and their request for this is because there are many children that play in the streets over on Impala Drive around Cherry Street and at Irish Elementary. They think that this represents a clear and present danger to their children's safety, pedestrian safety and safety in the neighborhood. He is under the belief that North Impala Drive is a 30 foot wide street that has a 1,000 vehicle per day maximum usage on it. There are 39 homes on Impala Drive, which is a dead end street. There is one way out on Vine Drive and one way out on Cherry Street where it T's with Impala Drive. They are also impacted by the traffic at the school coming up Impala Drive. He is of the belief that they are already seeing this 1,000 vehicle per day limit and because of any proposed LMN zoning and the density that it would allow, there is two ways this traffic is going to go. One way is out onto Vine and the other is down Impala. He thinks that is just too much at this time to be handled. He is requesting that the Board halt this annexation until this can property be studied, so they do not put the health and welfare and the safety of their children and pedestrians at risk in their neighborhood. In summary, this incompatible annexation proposal looks great on the map and fits the colors. If you only would go out there and look at this and see how preposterous this is, you would understand. It is insensitive to and lacks respect for the long standing residents of this Green Acres subdivision and the surrounding neighborhoods. It presents issues of public safety, public health and societal concerns, all of which are undesirable and unnecessary. He again pleaded with the Board to halt this annexation at this time. After all 115 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 4 DRAFT distinction clear because there are several properties that are more rural in this immediate vicinity, including this property than there are to the south on Impala Drive. He stated that the area with sidewalk is a subdivision and the area where there wasn't sidewalk, just swales off the side of the road is not included in the subdivision. Mr. Jones wanted to go back to 1997 and look at the issue of when property designated Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood on the Structure Plan was zoned originally back in 1997, one of the fundamental questions was do you zone it RL, Residential Low Density or do you zone it LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The difference between the two is primarily in density. The RL zone allows the smallest size lot to be 6,000 s.f., whereas the LMN can go up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Jones wanted to point out a couple of examples to address the question raised at worksession; which was would it not be more appropriate to zone this Adrian Annexation RL versus LMN. He argued that it would make more sense to zone it LMN. Mr. Jones gave a couple of examples of other areas of the city with similar situations, He stated that it was important to see that in 1997 when this zoning was initiated all of the areas that were zoned LMN were vacant at that point and all of the areas that were zoned RL, already had been developed. The assumption at that point was that if it has development potential and it is designated Low Density Residential on the Structure Plan, go ahead and make it LMN and if it is already developed in the time frame of the Structure Plan and does not have redevelopment potential, you give it RL. Mr. Jones reiterated that the Adrian Annexation site being a piece of property that is a meets and bounds rural type of character that is not part of a subdivision would be appropriate to be LMN. Public Input Dr. Steven Schafer, 601 North Impala Drive read a statement of a petition (Exhibit A) into the record. They request that this annexation be halted immediately and stated numerous reasons. They believe that this could perhaps be zoned RL or UE to keep it more in character with the City Code. The Land Use Code, Section 3.5.1 states that "any architectural design and construction carried out should maintain the architectural character and integrity of the neighborhood." They are requesting that a thorough traffic study be done immediately at this point, before this annexation goes through. It should include vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on both West Vine and North Impala Drives, traffic flow on Cherry Street between North Impala and Irish Drive and also on Irish Drive. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 3 Project: DRAFT Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 Project Description: Request to annex and zone 2.18 acres located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of Laporte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single family residence (with house and barn) and is in the FA Farming Zoning District in Larimer.County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairperson Torgerson excused himself because of a conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Meyer. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation stating that staff was recommending approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. He stated that the property is eligible for annexation by virtue of the Irish Second Annexation along West Vine Drive, which was a flag pole annexation that was done several years ago to enable the city to annex Irish Elementary. Planner OR displayed the zoning map and pointed out the properties in yellow around the Adrian property that are in the city and are in the LMN zoning district and also what was still in Larimer County. Planner Olt displayed the Structure Plan map that was adopted by the city in 1997 and stated that the property to be discussed tonight is designated as Low Density, Mixed Use Residential. The requested zoning that the applicants are bringing before the board is consistent with the adopted city Structure Plan. Troy Jones, M Torgerson Architects spoke on behalf of the applicant. He wanted to respond to a couple of issues that were brought up at worksession. Mr. Jones displayed the site and stated that the subject property and the property to the south as well as the two properties across Impala Drive are not part of the subdivision that is to the south. He thought it was important to make that £' _ .:. :=ate "e',� � . "I ■ Passed and adopted on final reading this 6th day of April, A.D. 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Thence South 89' 14'52"East along the South line of the Irish Second Annexation a distance of 244.40 feet to the West line of a parcel of land described in Reception No. 91012605 of the Records of Larimer County; Thence; South 00'37'49" West along said West line a distance of 404.11 feet to the North line of said parcel of land described in Reception No. 91012605 of the Records of Larimer County; Thence North 88'06'11" West along said North line a distance of 244.67 feet to the West ROW line of Impala Drive as dedicated in the Replat of the Green Acres Subdivision; The next Four (4) courses and distances are along the West ROW line of said Impala Drive: Thence North 00'3943" East a distance of 44.65 feet to a Point of Curvature; Thence along the arc of a curve concave to the West a distance of 117.88 feet, said curve has a Radius of 693.16 feet a Delta of 09'44'38" and is subtended by a chord bearing North 04' 12'37" West a distance of 117.74 feet to a Point of Reverse Curvature; Thence along the are of a curve concave to the East a distance of 117.88 feet, said curve has a Radius of 693.16 feet, a Delta of 09'44'38" and is subtended by a chord bearing North 04' 12'37" West a distance of 117.88 feet to a Point of Tangency; Thence North 00'3943" East a distance of 120.37 feet to the South line of said Irish Second Annexation and the True Point Of Beginning. Said Parcel contains 2.180 acres more or less. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above - described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of March, A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of April, A.D. 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 052, 2004 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE ADRIAN ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO W IEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Adrian Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the County of Latimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A parcel of land being a part of the Northeast Quarter (NEl/4) of Section Nine (9), Township Seven North MN), Range Sixty -Nine West (R69W), Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 9 and assuming the North line of said NE 1/4 as bearing South 89' 14'52" East, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/92, a distance of 2627.67 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto: Thence South 89' 14'52" East along the North line of the NE 1/4 of said Section 9 a distance of 1051.60 feet to the West Right of Way (ROW) line of Impala Drive as dedicated in the Replat of the Green Acres Subdivision; Thence South 00'39'43" West along the said West ROW line of Impala Drive a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of intersection of the West Right of Way (ROW) line of Impala Drive and the South line of the Irish Second Annexation and the True Point of Beginning; Thence along the arc of a curve concave to the West a distance of 117.88 feet, said curve has a Radius of 693.16 feet a Delta of 09'44'38" and is subtended by a chord bearing North 04' 12'37" West a distance of 117.74 feet to a Point of Reverse Curvature; Thence along the arc of a curve concave to the East a distance of 117.88 feet, said curve has a Radius of 693.16 feet, a Delta of 09'44'38" and is subtended by a chord bearing North 04' 12'37" West a distance of 117.88 feet to a Point of Tangency; Thence North 00'3943" East a distance of 120.37 feet to the South line of said Irish Second Annexation and the True Point Of Beginning. Said Parcel contains 2.180 acres more or less. s is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Adrian Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. 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 3745-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of March, A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of April, A.D. 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 6th day of April, A.D. 2004. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 2 ORDINANCE NO.051, 2004 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE ADRIAN ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2004-012, 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 parcel of land being a part of the Northeast Quarter (NEI/4) of Section Nine (9), Township Seven North MN), Range Sixty -Nine West (R69W), Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Latimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 9 and assuming the North line of said NE 1/4 as bearing South 89' 14'52" East, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/92, a distance of 2627.67 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto: Thence South 89'14'52" East along the North line of the NE 1/4 of said Section 9 a distance of 1051.60 feet to the West Right of Way (ROW) line of Impala Drive as dedicated in the Replat of the Green Acres Subdivision; Thence South 00'39'43" West along the said West ROW line of Impala Drive a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of intersection of the West Right of Way (ROW) line of Impala Drive and the South line of the Irish Second Annexation and the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 89'14'52"East along the South line of the Irish Second Annexation a distance of 244.40 feet to the West line of a parcel of land described in Reception No. 91012605 of the Records of Larimer County; Thence; South 00'3749" West along said West line a distance of 404,11 feet to the North line of said parcel of land described in Reception No. 91012605 of the Records of Larimer County; Thence North 88*06'11" West along said North line a distance of 244.67 feet to the West ROW line of Impala Drive as dedicated in the Replat of the Green Acres Subdivision; The next Four (4) courses and distances are along the West ROW line of said Impala Drive: Thence North 00'39'43" East a distance of 44.65 feet to a Point of Curvature; RESOLUTION 2004-043 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE ADRIAN ANNEXATION WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of Fort Collins for property to be known as the Adrian 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 as follows: Section 1. That the Council 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 proposed to be annexed; 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 nearfuture; 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 Adrian 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 16th day of March, A.D. 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk March 16, 2004 -3- item No. 25 A-C Findines: 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 the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On February 3, 2004, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning of LMN - Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting of February 19, 2004, voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. The Board voted 5-1(Torgerson withdrawn) to recommend that the property he placed in the RL - Low Density Residential Zoning District. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 (Torgerson withdrawn) to recommend that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. March 16, 2004 -2- Item No. 25 A-C OWNER: John and Julie Adrian 2333 West Vine Drive Fort Collins, CO 80521 BACKGROUND The applicant, M. Torgerson Architects, on behalf of the property owners, John and Julie Adrian, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 2.18 acres located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of LaPorte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single-family residence (with house and horse bam). The requested zoning for this annexation is LAIN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The surrounding properties are zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood in the City to the north, FA — Farming in Larimer County to the east, FA — Farming in Larimer County to the west, and FA — Farming in Larimer County to the south. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. 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 Urtan Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Irish Second Annexation (December, 2000) to the north. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN in the City; existing West Vine Drive FA in Larimer County; existing single-family residential E: FA in Larimer County; existing single-family residential S: FA in Larimer County; existing single-family residential W: FA in Larimer County; existing single-family residential The requested zoning for this annexation is the LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District. There are numerous uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City's adopted Structure Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that a Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood is appropriate in this location. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which was established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT Items Relating to the Adrian Annexation and Zoning. RECOMMENDATION ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-C DATE: March 16, 2004 STAFF: Steve Olt Staff recommends adoption of the annexation ordinance and approval of the requested zoning of L AN - Low Density Mixed -Use Residential. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation; and, the Board voted 5-1 (Torgerson withdrawn) to recommend that the property be placed in the RL - Low Density Residential Zoning District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2004-043 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Adrian Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Adrian Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Adrian Annexation. This is a request to annex and zone 2.18 acres located at the southeast comer West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of LaPorte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single-family residence (with house and horse barn) and is in the FA — Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is LAN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. APPLICANT: M. Torgerson Architects c/o Mikal Torgerson 223 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524