Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutK 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING 1.27.92 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 51 91 A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING 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 1 - 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, #110-79I; 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. t .A P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Member O'Dell felt that the condition was a somewhat an unreasonable on their use of the land and that was not to say that they could not come up with some other project that was equally as good on the north 50 acres. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of the Ute Farm Special Review - County Referral, #1-92, as outlined in the staff report. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval carried 6-1. Chairman Strom stated that the next item up for discussion was Item 16 - Pickett Second Annexation and Zoning, #56-91A, and asked if this item should be considered with the Pickett Third Annexation and Zoning, #56-91B,C or should they be treated separately. A member of the audience approached the podium to reconsider Item 11 - K-2 Annexation, #51- 91A. Chairman Strom asked Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman if this type of request could be considered. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that this item passed with a unanimous vote on the Consent Agenda and that anyone could move to reconsider that matter. If the motion to reconsider passed then the main motion of that Annexation would be back on the table for discussion. Member O'Dell moved to reconsider Item 11 - K-2 Annexation and Zoning, #51-91A. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. K-2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #51-91A Ms. Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the annexation and zoning. 4 P & Z NM*;UTES January 27, 1992 Mr. Peterson added an additional point of information to the description and recommendation. He stated that the City had recently acquired an electric right-of-way north of this property in the past few months. Chairman Strom asked if there were any Board questions for staff at that time. There were no questions. Chairman Strom asked for public input. Mr. Frank Just, Owner of Lot 1 in the K-2 Subdivision, represented all the land owners in the area. Mr. Just stated that he was opposed to the annexation and zoning of K-2. Some of the reasons Mr. Just presented included increased taxes, sales tax, and storm water control. Mr. Just stated that he managed the storm water control on his property for 17 years and that it would cost him $70 a month just for the City to manage the rain water on his property. Mr. Just received a letter that stated a 5 % increase on the managing of the water would be put in place, therefore, that total cost would increase to $798/year. Mr. Just rented out his property and discussed the annexation with that renter. The renter stated that if the property is annexed and he would have to pay City sales tax on the items purchased, he would need to move to another piece of property that was still located in the County. Mr. Just stated that the economic value of the land then is lost to him and would probably end up in some banker's hands. Mr. Just was also opposed to the up zoning of the property to IL. He also pointed out that when the C. W. Building was originally built its main use was for metal fabrication. If the up zoning were to take place then he would not be able to use the building for which it was built for. Mr. Just then noted Ms. Whetstone's letter which stated, "Primary metal and related industries are not allowed for that particular zoning." Mr. Just felt that was one of the items for which that property should remain, due to its zoning by the County. Chairman Strom closed the public input session. Member O'Dell questioned the proposed zoning and stated that Mr. Just commented on metal fabrication. Member O'Dell asked what Mr. Just would need to do to go back to that use sometime in the future. Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated that there are two processes that a proposed use can go through in this particular circumstance. The existing buildings and their uses would fall into a non -conforming use category. Any expansion to those uses or any change from those uses to another proposed use could come through the non -conforming use change part of the zoning 5 P & Z MIlVUTES January 27, 1992 code, which requires a public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board. The second option is to submit a Planned Unit Development for review by the Board and propose a use through that process. Member O'Dell asked what one would need to do now in the County to make that change. Mr. Waido stated that he was not familiar with that, but he would guess that it would be a use - by -right. Mr. Peterson stated that there is one other option that could be considered. The option would be to not have a P.U.D. condition on that specific area. If a P.U.D. condition did not exist then that would open the properties up to an administrative review process for essentially light industrial type of uses. Member Walker stated that Mr. Just brought up several issues regarding the cost of the change to him in regards to taxes. Member Walker asked when something is annexed how does that change what the property owner has to deal with. Mr. Waido stated that when a property is annexed into the City, the County Assessor will put the City's Mill Levy on and remove the Poudre Fire Authority Mill Levy because the City is a part of the Poudre Fire Authority. When the Poudre Fire Authority Mill Levy is removed there would be one mill difference and the property tax actually goes down upon annexation into the City. The other taxes and fees mentioned by Mr. Just are correct. The purchases made by the property owners within the annexation would have to include City sales tax. Any business expansions would have to pay City use tax, and Storm Drainage fees would be applied. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the electric rates would probably go down with City electric. Mr. Peterson stated that the property is in the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin which the City has not established a fee structure for Storm Drainage and probably will not set one up for several years. Mr. Waido stated that in terms of utilities the only change that would take place upon annexation was electrical power. The properties, if they are on Elco Water or Boxelder Sanitation, would remain so or even upon development the property owners could utilize whichever utility service that they feel would best be served in the area. The owner would not have to use City water. Chairman Strom asked if the property was zoned IL without the P.U.D. condition would they still have the option of coming in with a P.U.D. CI t P&ZMN=S January 27, 1992 Mr. Peterson stated that was correct. Member O'Dell asked if the P.U.D. condition was not put on now would there be any opportunity in the future to add it. Mr. Peterson stated that there would be two opportunities, one being that the City could consider the rezoning of the property. The other option would be if the property owners requested a zone change. Member O'Dell was concerned about the property owner, but she felt we still need to look ahead in regards to development heading out in that direction that the City would want to have more control over what might happen. Mr. Peterson stated that as part of the City Council Work Program, the I-25 plan would be be started in 1993. The property studied would be a mile on either side of the interstate. Zoning would be one of the questions addressed. There would be, therefore, another opportunity within 2 years to review that area again. Member Cottier asked if it would make any sense to zone it "T" at this time. Mr. Peterson stated that you cannot zone it "T" because the property was presently being used. If it was vacant farm land then that could be an option. Member Walker stated that the surrounding land shows an "IL" designation and is that with or without a P.U.D. condition. Ms. Whetstone stated that designation is with a condition. The existing zoning was actually Industrial in the County along the area of the Frontage Road. The rest of the area was zoned FA-1 (farming). Member Walker moved to recommend approval of the K-2 Annexation and Zoning, #51- 91A, with the P.U.D. condition. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member O'Dell stated that she would encourage Mr. Just and the other residents to get together with Ms. Whetstone or Mr. Peterson to discuss what impacts it will have on them prior to the Council consideration of approval. 7 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 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 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