HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/15/2009 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION DATE: December 15, 2009 SUMMARY
'
STAFF: Steve Olt FORT COLLINSCOUNCIL
Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2009-113 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Fossil Creek 392
Annexation and Zoning.
i
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2009, Annexing Property Known as the Fossil Creek 392
Annexation to the City.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2009,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to annex and zone 28 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road(SH 392),at the southwest
corner of Interstate 25 &Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP -Airport District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is C-Commercial.
Staff is recommending that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map
amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an"Area
Not in the Sign District'. The"Residential Neighborhood Sign District'was established for the purpose of regulating
signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs
because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an identified commercial
corridor along 1-25, with the closest predominantly residential uses approximately 1,000 feet to the west.
This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations,
the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan,the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code,the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan,the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement,the City of Fort Collins and
Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement,and the 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan.There are
no known controversies associated with this annexation. A few issues to be addressed as part of a future site
specific development plan relate to: coordination of the SH 392 and southwest frontage road alignments and
right-of-way delineations; and, potential impacts on the existing wetlands on the middle portion of the property.
The development review process has protection measures within Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code to
ensure that existing wetlands on the property are adequately protected and buffered. Within this section is the
requirement for the provision of an ecological characterization study, which is the foundation for establishing
buffer zones to protect the wetlands.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The applicant, Larry Gilleland,for the property owners,VPD 392 LLC and Peter Prato, has submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (SH 392), at the southwest corner
of Interstate 25 and Carpenter Road.The property is undeveloped and is in the AP-Airport District in Larimer County.
The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is C -Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned
POL—Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C—Commercial and T—Tourist in Larimer County to the north,AP-
Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east. This is a
100%voluntary annexation.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies,and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
r
December 15, 2009 -2- ITEM 20
Urban 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. The property lies within the Corridor Activity Center boundary in the 1-251SH 392
Interchange Improvement Plan. It gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with
the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation (June, 2008) to the north.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: POL in the City of Fort Collins, C and T in Larimer County; undeveloped
E: C in the Town of Windsor; existing commercial development
S: AP in Larimer County; existing large acreage residential, commercial
W: AP in Larimer County; existing large acreage residential, commercial
The requested zoning for this annexation is the C-Commercial Zoning District. There are numerous uses permitted
in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The adopted City
Structure Plan,a part of the Comprehensive Plan(City Plan), identifies that Commercial is appropriate in this location.
The request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the
1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan.
A few issues to be addressed as part of a future site specific development plan relate to: coordination of the SH 392
and southwest frontage road alignments and right-of-way delineations;and,potential impacts on the existing wetlands
on the middle portion of the property. The development review process has protection measures within Section
3.4.1(E)of the Land Use Code to ensure that existing wetlands on the property are adequately protected and buffered.
Within this section is the requirement for the provision of an ecological characterization study,which is the foundation
for establishing buffer zones to protect the wetlands.
Findings:
1. 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 November 3,2009,the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-099 which 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 C—Commercial Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
No direct economic impacts will result with this proposed annexation and zoning, as the property is undeveloped at
the present time. With new commercial development, the City may participate in infrastructure financing along with
private development. Future commercial development will also generate sales and use tax revenues for the City.
The physical environment will not be directly impacted by the proposed annexation and zoning of the property. The
zoning standards described in the Land Use Code establish regulations to determine the appropriate land uses and
design and development standards required for new development. New development is required to comply with the
City's Land Use Code Natural Area Standards to assess and address any potential environmental impacts.
The health, safety and well-being of the community and its citizens will not be adversely impacted by the proposed
annexation and zoning of the property. The annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised
Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code, the Fossil
December 15, 2009 -3- ITEM 20
Creek Reservoir Area Plan,the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement,the City of Fort
Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading.
Staff recommends that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment
will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an"Area Not in the Sign
District".
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and that the property be placed
in the C -Commercial Zoning District.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 - 0 to recommend that this property not be included in the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District".
At the November 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, staff forwarded a recommendation for a
condition of approval on the zoning of the property. The need for an Ecological Characterization Study(ECS)for the
subject property is a certainty because of known wetlands on the property. Based on requirements set forth in the
Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code, an ECS must be part of any future Project Development Plan (PDP)
submittal to the City if the development site contains, or is within 500 feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural'characteristics in need of
protection. Staff determined that it would be prudent to receive and review an ECS for the subject property prior to
an applicant/developer investing the time and expense of preparing a complete PDP submittal that may be subject
to changes after review of an ECS. The recommended condition stated:
"A comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and
submitted to the City for review and acceptance prior to the submittal of any application for approval
of a Project Development Plan."
After lengthy discussion and deliberation the Planning and Zoning Board decided not to support the recommended
condition of approval on the zoning and did not include the condition in its recommendation to City Council. The
Board's position is that requiring an ECS to be submitted prior to PDP submittal should be more of a broad, citywide
policy issue and that making it a condition of approval on annexation of a specific property is inappropriate.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred prior to the item going before the Planning and
Zoning Board at its regularly scheduled public hearing on November 19, 2009. A letter of notification of the public
hearing (containing date, time, and place for the hearing and a description of the request)was mailed to all affected
property owners within 1,000 feet of the property 14 days prior to the hearing.A neighborhood meeting is not required
for annexation of property and no meeting was held for this annexation and zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes from the November 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting.
2. Vicinity Map
December 15, 2009 -4- ITEM 20
3. City Structure Plan (partial)
4. City Zoning Map (partial) '
5. Powerpoint Presentation.
l
ATTACHMENT 1
PIAhin. _ -
. - ee•
. ee •
Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw Staff Liaison: Steve Dush
Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (H) 224-9418
,fs
Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Lingle, Rollins,- c ii t Smith, and Stockover
Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, MapeslNray, andSanchez-Sprague
60--
Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the agenda and requested the following consent items be
I am
pulled for consideration:
1. Minutes from the October 15, 2009 Planning &Ziining Hearin
2. Fossil Creek 392 Annexation & Zoning, # 32-0
wl
Citizen participation:
G �5
None
Consent Agenda:
None
Discussion Agenda:.
1. Minutes from the October 1'52009 Planning.&=Zoning Hearing
2. Fossil Creek 392 Annene ati #Zoning, # 32- 9
3. 1124 W. Mulberry Street—Addition of Permitted,Use, # 34-09
4. North College Publiclnfrastructure Funding Plan=
Member Lingle requested a change t pager
f the=minutes from the October 15th Hearing. The
�%-i r
condition included in""the motion nearcthe bottom of-
page 4 should be changed to read: A 4.5' sidewalk
� w
shall be iindluded in Phase l runningfth.&length of East Lake Street along the north property line of the
site.
io 15:—
Member Lingle moved to approve item# 1 October 15, 2009 minutes of the Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing as amended. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0.
Project: Foss il'Creek 392 Annexation &Zoning, # 32-09
Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of
Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 &
Carpenter Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is
undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The surrounding
properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C
— Commercial and T — Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in
Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor
to the east. The requested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 2
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property
be placed in the C - Commercial Zoning District.
Staff is recommending that this property not be included in the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this
property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the
Sign District".
Staff is recommending a condition of approvalA Comprehensive Ecological
Characterization Study must be prepared by a�q �ed consultant and submitted
to the City for review prior to the submittal of any application for approval of a
Project Development Plan." �
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Planner Steve Olt reported this is a voluntary request to annex and zone 28.9 acres I Mated on the south
side of Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest cornerof Interstate 25 &`carpenter Road.
The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport Di.ct,in Lar er: County. The requested zoning
for this annexation is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL - Public
Open Lands in the City to the north, C - Commercial and T-Toi r st in Larimer County to the north, AP -
Airport in Larimer County to the west andsouth; and C - Commerc al n;the Town of Windsor to the east.
WOMThe property is located within the Fort Collins-G or wth>Management A��e�a According to policies and
agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larime County contained in the Intergovernmental
-'� 0,
Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the�C�-,ity'will-agrereex-to consider annexation of property
in the UGA when the propertysi,eligible for annexation accordinggto State law. The property lies within
the Corridor Activity Cente obou dary, in the 1-25/S 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. It gains the
required 1/6 contiguity to existing Nil from a common boundary with the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Open Space Annexatio(June, 2008) the north.
Staff is recommending thato-the ,propertybe place dlin the C - Commercial District, which is in
conformance with�he�,,City's Structure Plan;th�itXthis property not be included in the Residential
NeighborhoodOS@n%istnct. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the
ResidentiaaIrNeighborhood�Si'kiegn District-Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District", and that it is approved
with thiErAllowing condition:A Comprehe a Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a
qual '�consultant and suitted to thesC ified submitted ity for review prior to the submittal of any application for
approval of Project Development nt Plan.
Board Questio ��
Member Lingle askedsince wei striking-Re acceptance" to the original recommended condition he's not
g . P
sure what the intent isfoavmg it submitted ahead of the Project Development Plan (PDP) as opposed
to just being a part of the--P,DP. Olt said an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required per LUC
Section 3.4.1(D) (1). Staff has determined it would be prudent to receive and review an ECS for the
subject property prior to an applicant/developer investing the time and expense of preparing a complete
PDP that may be subject to changes after review of the ECS. It could result in significant rounds of
review and would result in additional time and expense. They believe it would be beneficial to both the
applicant/developer and the City to delineate the wetlands and the impact as they move into their
design/development. Lingle said he'd just be concerned "as the applicant" to have it so open ended—he
said you could submit for a review and it could be under review for up to a year with no resolution.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 3
Director Dush said the intent is rather than wait until the applicant submit a formal preliminary
development plan, it's good planning to identify the constraints up front so that we can incorporate those
considerations into the design/development of the project. Staff spoke with the applicant at length on
November 18. The applicant did mention some of the same concerns and asked if other applications be
subject to the same requirement. Dush said his response was that if we had similarly situated
development applications, he can't imagine they wouldn't suggest the same condition. Dush said as a
matter of fact, the Board will be having a work session in March to talk about the timing of ECSs.
Because of the wetlands on the property, staff believes it would be prudent to have the ECS prior to the
PDP submittal—not unlike an easement or any other issue.
Olt said a conceptual review for property just across Carpenter Road totthe north (along the east side of
the reservoir) has been set for Monday, November 23. He said they II a so.be requesting the applicant
�
complete an ECS prior to submittal of their PDP—they'd like to hoo-_,. �R them tohe same standard as this
project. Olt said relative to the timing of the review of the ECS, he'll ask En onmental Planner Dana
Leavitt to speak to that. � �� ��
4
Member Smith, said because he's not familiar with the Eprocess; could the applicant'submit his ECS
one day prior to his PDP. Leavitt said the LUC requires`"an ECS to be�eompleted, it does�not state when it
has to be submitted. Historically, they've been submitted wl"en the plication comes in-. He said in his
tenure, they've also come in ahead of time on an informal l asis define what the ECS is going to
require and to establish a schedule of the submittal and review-�--_�--.. Proposed mitigation measures for
impacts of development are a part of thhstudy. If you put the2development before the proposed
mitigation measures you're getting a plan thatTmostlikely is not going'to;address any potential impact to
the natural resources—in this case the wetlands.
ME
Member Smith asked if the mitigation method efforts..diff&b sed on what the PDP would be—the
s :
intensity/type of development.�His sense is they needito come simultaneously. Leavitt said you do have
an idea of what the develop ent would be like but/you don't h e is a plan that shows, in this case,
development into the weal nds or—thin the buffer unless there's an agreement that's what's going to
happen.
Member Campana said that ke&se to}have the ECS prior to the PDP being developed but is there
a time period� scan addkto--ttthhe condition -Leavitt said he would feel comfortable with 30 days
based onchedulmgo;protects. H would allow him time to inspect the site and work with the
consultant%nd allow them=time to dey—lop the site. Campana said he'd like to hear the applicant's
respon"seto that.
Chair Schmidt�said she had one= uestion prior to going to the applicant. She's presuming the stud gets
G, P 9 9 PP P 9 Y
done, the PDo mes through and then the PDP expires. Would the study stand? Leavitt said it'd
MV&depend upon environmental c itions—what changes on the site. It's based on a case-by-case basis
and would require going outto revisit the site. Campana said part of the confusion is the ECS is
independent of the PDP WNAwhat the conditions of the wetlands are, what needs to be mitigated, and then
what you design your PDRaround. Campana said if your PDP changes, it shouldn't change your ECS.
Applicant's Presentation
Larry Gilleland, one of the owners of the property, said he had nothing to add other than their needs to
be a policy and that we shouldn't come up with new rules each time. He's not opposed to anything that
he's heard as far as the ECS delineating what would be a preserved area—not impacted by
development. They are aware there are some wetlands. They are not necessarily in agreement as to
the amount of naturally reoccurring wetlands. Hopefully the ECS will delineate what exists by "God's
hand" and what exists by "man's hand" and they can agree to mitigate to the degree that is acceptable.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 4
He said the Board's raised a good point—when do you bring it in. Is the onus on the City once we bring
it in to get it approved within a certain period of time? That should all be a part of the policy that needs to
be addressed.
Gilleland recognizes that normally a flag gets waved when you see a visual of a potential environmental
concern. He'd like to caution is environmental impact is not just visual. He used an example of a
development he was working with in Scottsbluff, NE in which a farmer had dumped diesel oil into the
ground over many years. It was not visible but there was enough intuitive experience of the
environmental team to determine a problem. His recommendation is the City considers a policy that puts
everyone on an even keel. He said they are an environmentally consciousro p nd want to preserve
the natural wetlands area and debate through the ECS what is not natural wetlands.
Public Input: OA
David Feuer is a property owner adjacent to the land in question He said he hQ—_-&a couple of questions.
If this annexation occurs, what studies will be done to determine-the impact on the neighboring
community? He also wanted to know about the wetlands.A-He understands that it's� r to a flood
plain and there's a geographic area that's going to have: ertain amount of water coritrl_entthat will vary
by season and that'd most likely assess it at the highppo�� Wn
Chair Schmidt said once the annexation and zoning is estab edvthe developer can bring in a plan that
K
meets zoning requirements. At that point, there a number of standards considered when evaluating a.
development proposal. Additionally, the neighbors would have a the ce to participate/comment at a
neighborhood meeting level on the proposed a elopm, ent. Olt offe ed nformation on the development
review process. He said at this point, we are simW.plyd k�ing3at the annexation and zoning (phase 1.) He
said we do not have any information to evaluate`mpact,on-hproperty atlth� is juncture; that will occur
with the Project Development Plan (PDP) is submitted
7—*-
Feuer said he's in favor ofw`iseve"lopment of the land and he looks forward to well-planned growth.
He just wants to make sure what's done is done in a way that is environmentally and socially friendly.
01
Chair Schmidt suggested that if Mr. Feuer sees a development proposal sign, he does not hesitate to call
to make sure his name is on theli�to get updates/notice of hearings. She said we notice property
owners within arcertaiin distanc you are=outside that area you will not receive notice.
6 UK xhN
Public Input Closed ,�
Qoardien Response & Qtions "
Chair Schmidtked what plan are being made to establish a policy relative to ECS submittals.
She'd also like to ow when a ECS is triggered. Olt read Section 3.4.1(D)(1) stating an ECS must be
a part of any future Pf the development site contains or is within 500 feet of a natural habitat or
feature, or if it is determinedthat the site likely include areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural
characteristics in need 0 otection.
Schmidt asked if we'll be changing the Code language to require submittal 30 days prior to a PDP
submittal. Director Dush said that's exactly what they've been talking about in the recent past—including
a meeting today related to the Riverwalk project. Dush said he thinks we need to take a look at a policy
change, how it's implemented, and timing of ECS submittals in relation to PDP submittals.
Member Stockover said if the ECS is submitted 30 days in advance and it takes 30 days to review that
doesn't give the developer much time to put together a development plan. He thinks this all goes to risk
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 5
and reward for the developer. As staff said, the City's stance at conceptual review is these are the things
you should do. Stockover said we need to stick to the plan.as it exists today. We're trying to change the
plan for one piece of property and we're doing that in haste. As he thinks through what's proposed, even
with a 30 day ECS pre-submittal; he just doesn't see how it helps the developer.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that's a point well taken. He said for the case being considered
tonight, the condition should be revised to read, A Comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study
must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City at least 30 days for review prior to
the submittal of any application for approval of a Project Development Plant',ou could submit it prior to
that, e.g. 60 days before. He said in consultation with Director Dush, there- h Id also be an "outside"
period. We wouldn't want one submitted 10 years before because as was mentioned conditions could
change. He said we need to have an actual window such as not mthan one year but at least 30 days.
Member Stockover said it's his feeling that this applicant already knows the wee wetlands are an issue so he
thinks, in his opinion, we should just drop it. He thinks wee lou�ld review th policy change in work
session. He doesn't think we need to act in haste tonight '`
Member Carpenter asked if there was something now4that,preventh develope%1k4bringing in an
ECS prior to his PDP review. Director Dush said no. Thee Nave bb cases that we'd done reviews on
an informal basis. By staff suggesting this condition now itNjust1provides that level of certainty for any
individual that comes in. Should the property be sold, it puts therffi5-on notice that an ECS is required at
least 30 days prior to the PDP submittal. Carpenter said she's feeli g'petty much the way Stockover is.
She does think it's something we need to disc s�but we need to discuss it,in a work session to figure
out how we're going to go forward on a policy and lee these people do wh e've laid out for them as our
current policy. ��
Member Rollins said she also agrees with Stockove0 She s corfcluded from work session discussion
% ¢- W
that the current policy may not4bekworking so we need to work.on that. The current property owner is
aware of the situation. She thinks we should not require it for this one project. It should be changed at a
policy level and not for4 his one projectV
Member Lingle said he'd%sagreeHaid we'dpbe changing it on this one project with the
6;ers
recommended condiditi Current policy is theyA a submit anytime. He thinks in fairness it should nbt
be an ope�n�e ded`requsement Hoesn t believe the City will do this but if not outlined clearly the
developer-could be waiting,61months He thinks the 30 day requirement gives everyone a little protection
including the developer wh wi et the a rance that it would not be unnecessarily delayed.
Chair SchmidtYasked if currently there is no prescribed timeline in which ECSs are reviewed. If there are
a large numbe aprojects, could it take 6 months to complete a review? Leavitt said right now the
limiting factor is when.a PDP is submitted and review comments are due (2-3 weeks.) Most of the times
he's aware when the er pare issues with a site. However, there is time that's its not submitted until the
PDP.
Member Campana saidithere's a time limit right now. If you submit your ECS with your PDP you have 2-
3 weeks to get comments back to the applicant. Olt said correct; if there are environmental issues
related to the proposed development that needs to be stated with the first round of comments 3 weeks
after submittal. Campana asked Lingle if that satisfies his concerns—we've put an end bracket on the
time frame. Lingle said the condition is that it'd have to be submitted prior to the PDP. Carpenter said
we don't have to agree to the condition. Campana said what some members are suggesting is that we
remove the condition and deal with that policy issue in a work session setting.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 6
Chair Schmidt asked how the scenario plays out if 2-3 weeks is not enough time for a study that is very
detailed. Leavitt said he'd continue with his comments. Director Dush said for the normal process, if
they submitted an ECS without sufficient information; Leavitt would make a comment that he needs "x, y
and z." The applicant would then provide the information to update the ECS. Dush said the purpose of
the recommended condition was to identify the constraints early on in the development design process.
Member Rollins said doesn't every discipline have to submit a report to the City, e.g., traffic impact study.
You'd be under the same constraints to look at that study and evaluate it within the time period that's set
forth. She asked do you not scope out what you need to see in an ECS pr orMto them beginning work on
it. Leavitt said yes if they come in. Rollins said that would be the reason>why she couldn't support the
condition but she could support the annexation. She said that used��e an issue with traffic impact
studies but now before you do anything you have to have a form that¢s completed and signed by the City
Traffic Engineer that says he's scoped out the study. They use to get studiesthat were just guesses of
what somebody wanted. She said perhaps a tool like that would be,%beneficial%That should be worked
out in a process change and not this one project.
Member Campana said yes, it's just like performing�asurvey of, the site (elevati geographic
conditions) prior to doing your design. In the past,{perhaps people haave come forth wit the ECS and
PDP putting pressure on staff due to the money they hadeady spent- What Rollinslis talking about
5 la r
makes more sense.
l'v
Chair Schmidt said what she is hearing is t at,.there is an issue tbe�resolved but she doesn't know if
this condition works the best for the develope a d the City in this cam Theme,Board will review a policy
change in work session. It could result in a LardU'"se C a change thafuld apply to everyone.
Member Smith made a motion to recommend*the City=Council-approval of the Fossil Creek 392
Annexation and Zoning, # 32 Oland in suppo is motione adopts the findings of fact and
conclusion on page 4 of tF WStaff�Report:
-
1. The annexationdof this area: is consistent with the policies and agreements between
m
Larimer Countyland the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Theequest is in conformance with the City of
Fort Collins Comprehensive Rlan�the�City oof Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek
ReservoirlArea Plan: e Cityy&Wft Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental
A reement-ran�the 125/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan.
2. T.h area meets the_'eligibility_requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary
. �
AR��exation to the City of Fort`CIhns.
3. On November 3, 2009,---g he City Wuncil approved a resolution that accepted the annexation
petition and determinethat the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution
also i ated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and
place vA n as public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances
annexing and,-zoning,t a area.
4. The requestedtCommercial Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was passed 7:0.
Chair Schmidt noted the project was approved without the condition so hopefully we'll be seeing changes
to the Land Use Code related to ECS submittal requirements.
Fossil Creek 392 Annexation # 32-09 ATTACHMENT 2
Vicinity Map
Fossil Creek
Reservoir
0
3
y
W) LO
N
Im a
la O
IOV1
� T
IC �
O
U
N
0
d
Carpenter,Rd E,County,Roa1,32 State,Highway,392
SITERoyai VIS4
s ""ath
� ay
aYLn
Fa9ie R 5
an�h m
'P =
a
�a9�e
V, S Hathaway Ln
c �
0a\J lc2 O
IN Bayside
II
Country Farms Dr
� O U
my -_ d pJdaC
e4a� Q: w
3
o d y .d+ 4O41Oen V
C Sao � C
'd a
9ie R
City of A
Fort Collins
��� 1 inch = 1,000 feet
City of Fort Collins Structure Plan ATTACHMENT
#32-09
Fossil Creek 392 Annexation
V E
LMN Fort Collins -
�.r'"" MR ath -
i
RUL Windsor
UE Separator
( ;I RUL
RUL � {
1
I Fossil Creek
Reservoir
RUL _"r
POL
POL 4 iWE
UE
ANIV -11,..MI.
—Carpenter.Rd=T__� SH-392
L J — Annexation
POL Site
+y J OUT
7
�. __..
RUL Windsor
�I
N
City of
I_C id , .art Collins
Site Structure Plan cf Community separator
(irI City Limits rf Commercial Corridor District Open Lands,Parks and Stream Corridors
Boundaries Urban Estate Poudre River
Fort Collins GMA Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Adjacent Planning Areas
Wndsor Rural Lands C? Water Features
nu„Q-C,In
I I�6I `I III\�Ijb ,u,w.- I�iu O.♦
.I 1i/I i•Iltq.�4 ///„In up111,i/. �I bw a. - ..••�.
�n'r"� � ��'rII rlryll Uiiiiw I+i Ihuq-u� J
1 +'d''�Ir'�il�Ij rl9iii�iillil�.r..' ••ryI � `
nnO1P�/�
nIp•!-�'y0�
I
I
1-25
�•
1•A�40++•an
i
�p11111q
- /�t11111•
� •� .as... "_7;� i �//i�i
City Council Hearing
December 15 , 2009
Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392
Annexation and Zoning
Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392
Annexation and Zoning
A. Resolution Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determination
B . First Reading of Ordinance to Annex Subject Property
C . First Reading of Ordinance to Zone Subject Property
25
Fossil Creek Reservoir
Fossil Creek 392 Annexation
and Zoning
COUNTRY F4,RMs OR
Fossil Creek 392 Annexation Aerial
Context Map
a} a
Fossil Creek
Reservoir
FouL
ML
Or
LE
Carpenter. Rd �I SH•392
- - Annexation
Site
WT
yIC
Windsor
CR• 3S
IN
ILI
1
T
Fossil Creek OIL
Reservoir
i�
POL ,
Carpenter. R SH. 392
Site
Proposed Zoning
Commercial
6
3
Annexation In conformance with :
• City Plan
• Land Use Code
• Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
• Larimer County/City of Fort Collins/
Town of Windsor Intergovernmental
Agreements
• I -25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan
Issues to be addressed as part of a future site
specific development plan :
• Coordination of the SH 392 and southwest frontage road
• Potential impacts on the existing wetlands
• Section 3 .4 . 1 ( E ) of the Land Use Code
• Future Funding for 1 -25/SH 392 Interchange improvements
FL tf�
City Council Hearing
December 15 , 2009
Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392
Annexation and Zoning
RESOLUTION 2009-113
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the City Council for
property to be known as the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation; and
WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law,the City 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 City Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 2. That the City 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 near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being
integrated with the City.
Section 3. That the City 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 City 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 City Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the
Fossil Creek 392 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 this 15th
day of December A.D. 2009.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
J
r
ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2009
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS,Resolution 2009-099,finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation
proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines 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 TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO, TO WIT:
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE
6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. CONSIDERING THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AS BEARING N 890 40' 32" E AND WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING AT
THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, THENCE N 890 40'32" E, 60.01'TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE CONTINUING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, SAID
LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD N 890 40'32" E,
1214.38 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE S 000 19'28" E,33.41
FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 25,
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON THE
FOLLOWING COURSES:
S 810 21' 28" E, 303.80 FEET;
N 890 33' 02" E, 450.02 FEET;
S 310 12' 58" E, 553.67 FEET;
S 180 25' 02" E, 70.21 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINES 890 34'58"W,2279.35 FEET;
THENCE NO 000 28' 50"E, 625.37 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THUS DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 28.974 ACRES.
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City,to be known as the Fossil
Creek 392 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 37-45-136(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 15th day of
December, A.D. 2009, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of January, A.D. 2010.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of January, A.D. 2010.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2009
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 FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, 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 City Council has considered the zoning
of the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that 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 Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,Colorado,in the
Commercial ("C") Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the
County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO, TO WIT:
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE
6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. CONSIDERING THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AS BEARING N 890 40' 32" E AND WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING AT
THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, THENCE N 890 40' 32" E, 60.01'TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE CONTINUING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, SAID
LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD N 890 40'32"E,
1214.38 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE S 000 19'28" E,33.41
FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 25,
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON THE
FOLLOWING COURSES:
S 810 21' 28" E, 303.80 FEET;
N 890 33' 02" E, 450.02 FEET;
S 310 12' 58" E, 553.67 FEET;
S 180 25' 02" E, 70.21 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 890 34'58"W,2279.35 FEET;
THENCE NO 000 28' 50"E, 625.37 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THUS DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 28.974 ACRES.
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 not 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 15th day of
December, A.D. 2009, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of January, A.D. 2010.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of January, A.D. 2010.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk