Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEBSTER SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 21 92, A - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSe KAPLAN COMPANY April 13, 1992 Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clarke Planning Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, .CO 80524 J Re: P&Z Review of Fox Run P.U.D. Dear Sherry: I have had some time to reflect upon the surprise conclusion to our April 10, 1992 pre - conceptual Review meeting regarding the Overall Development Plan and First Phase Preliminary for the 90± acre Fox Run P.U.D. and now need to share with you some of my thoughts and concerns. As you must have noticed, project architect Frank Vought, project engineer Stan Meyers and I were in a state of disbelief to learn of your opinion at the conclusion of this meeting that despite our intended May 4, 1992 submissions to the City, our ODP and Preliminary would not be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at -its June 22, 1992 meeting due to the fact, unrelated as it may be, that the Webster Farm Second Annexation for this property will not have completed Second Reading by then. I understand your concern .to be that the P&Z Board does not like to consider plans until the jurisdictional issues are resolved. Were there in fact City vs. County or City utility vs. District utility jurisdictional issues regarding this property, I could understand what you believe to be a potential concern to the Board, but this simply is not the case. As a practical matter and certainly from a planning standpoint, the jurisdiction in which this property will develop has already been decided by the Urban Growth Area Plan. The matter of appropriate land uses, subdivision requirements, utilities, trails, roads, storm runoff and etc. already fall under the domain of the City of Fort Collins. There is absolutely no possibility of it being otherwise. It should be clear to the Board, or made clear to it, that its jurisdiction over this property is already established by virtue of the UGP. The County would not even accept a development proposal for this property. Its development outside the City and/or without City utilities is infeasible, contrary to City and County policies, and otherwise preposterous. 1060 Sailors Reel' • Fort Collins, Colondo 80525 • 303/226-6819 April 13, 1992 Page 2 The UGP requires that the owner of this property petition for annexation as a pre -condition for development, and the City is obligated to approve annexation, if the legal requirements are met. Has a petition for voluntary annexation of any property eligible for annexation been denied by the City since the adoption of the UGP, or for that matter even before its adoption? The Webster Farm is at least 50 percent surrounded by the City, is bordered by City utilities, and has only one owner, thus making it practically an enclave and the area of annexation 100 percent voluntary. If anyone on the Board, in the Planning Department or anywhere can think of a scenario under which this property would not be a_nn:xed, please tell me.. I believe you would agree with me that the only circumstance under which this property would not be annexed would be withdrawal of the petition, and this is impossible. - Consequently, there is absolutely no basis for the Board to believe that it may be wasting its time or that it is otherwise improper to review plan submissions prior to the routine completion of the annexation process. Reviewing this plan3 prior to Second Reading in no way begs the question of annexation, because, there is no question of annexation for an eligible property. In light of the City's annexation policy, there is nothing discretionary about the annexation of eligible property, and the function of a resolution and two readings is simply to comply with statutory requirements, which include findings that the legal requirements have been met and response to any public questions _and concerns in part. though a re -iteration of City policy. As you no doubt recall, it has been customary in Fort Collins for many years, even before the UGP obligated the City to annex eligible. prop -riles, for "Master Plan" submissions to accompany petitions for annexation. The Board actually wanted to see what was proposed for a property at the time of considering annexation. There was never any concern by the Board that reviewing plans was inappropriate and.ahould be delayed awaiting the completion of annexation mechanics by the City Council. - Not only is there no jurisdictional issue to cause hesitation by the Board in reviewing the Fox Run P.U.D. on.June 22 but, in light of project planning in the Pin. -cone P.U.D. immediately to the west of this property, the Board should embrace the opportunity to consider both projects in relationship to one another, which delaying Board review of the Fox Run P.U.D: would prevent. It is one thing for the staff, as it did on April 10, to encourage the two property owners "to work together" in their respective planning; however, in the interest of informing the Board on issues and possibilities to best stimulate quality decision -making, it would seem incumbent upon the staff to attempt to have both projects before the Board at the same meeting, if the applicants submit plans by May 4. Prior to our April 10, 1992 pre -conceptual Review meeting, I had been told by three (3) plannerswith the Planning Department essentially that the schedule for the annexation completion would be independent from the schedule for P.U.D. review by the Board. Initially, April 13, 1992 Page 3 planner Steve Olt verbally then in writing gave me a schedule showing Second Reading for the annexation on June 16, 1992. He also informed me that he would be the planner assigned to the development project. Days later Steve told me that the City Council would not be meeting on June 16, but he had checked with the City Attorney's office, and the staff would "go with" the June 22 Board meeting despite the annexation schedule. Next, planner Ted Shepherd notified me that he was now the planner assigned to this project and that there would be "no problem" in going to the Board on June 22, because neither the ODP nor the First Phase Preliminary involved, according to Ted, any "vesting rights." Finally, when the annexation petition was submitted on April 9 to planner Ken Wards, I pointed out to him . _ --that the applicant intended plan submissions by May 4 for review by the Board on June 22, and Ken concurred that this would be possible. A great deal of reliance has been created by these representations from three (3) seasoned staff members. The particulars of the Purchase and Sale Agreement are predicated upon a June 22 review by the Board. Additionally, service contracts with the architect and engineer and the organization of their work schedules and staffing requirements are based upon this information. Your April 10 reversal of what had been represented to me by three (3) other planners is not only extremely disruptive to the companies working on this project and my contract with the property owner but could he financially damaging as well. I am sure that you regret that this project has gotten off to such a confusing and negative start. Your apology for having to override members of .the staff makes this apparent. Nonetheless, while your believing that the Board would have concerns in reviewing plans for a property not. "officially" annexed may be correct, a basis for any Board concerns is absolutely without merit. The jurisdictional issue does not exist in that the UGP is crystal clear on the requirement that this property can only develop under the authority of the City of Fort Collins. The process of annexation, assuming eligibility, is a formality. Furthermore, the. opportunity for the Board to review the Pinecone P.U.D. and Fox Run P.U.D. concurrently would be lost if your position is not re-examined. I have some concern based upon staff comments at our recent meeting that were Woodward . Governor, which formally had a contract on this property, the applicant for annexation and plan review that perhaps a greater effort would be made to expedite the process rather than citing a procedural matter that might concern the Board. When my architect raised this possibility, I was uncomfortable with the chucZ ng `rom staff. I would like to believe that all applicants receive equal treatment, and in this vein would request from you a list of other projects which have been delayed from being reviewed by the Board until such time as the annexation was fully completed. I believe that such delays, if any, are the exception not the rule, and that in the past ODP's and Master Plans have been routinely considered by the Board without the annexation having finished all steps of the process.