HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/18/2003 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE STATE HIGHWAY 14 -- EAST FRO AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-D
DATE: February 18, 2003
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:
. Ted Shepard
SUBJECT:
Items Relating to the State Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
i
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2003-024 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Resolution 2003-025 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the State
Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No.032,2003,Annexing Property Known as the State Highway
14 —East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2003, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the State Highway 14
—East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 47.15 acres in size.
The site is located on the east side of the I-25 East Frontage Road approximately one-quarter mile
south of State Highway 14(East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary
is gained along the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Galatia
Annexation (230 acres). The recommended zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood. An Amendment to the Structure Plan Map is also recommended. The Ordinance
contains a provision to preserve the 100-year floodplain along Boxelder Creek as defined and
mapped by F.E.M.A.
ACKGROUND: i
The property is located within the Growth Management Area(GMA). According to the policies and y
agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider
annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State
law. The property gains contiguity by the following parcel:
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
South: Galatia Annexation (1990).
The parcel gains the necessary one-sixth contiguity along the south property line. Of the total
perimeter boundary, the parcel has 36.47% contiguity with the city limits. This substantially
exceeds the required minimum of 16.66% (one-sixth). The parcel, therefore, complies with the
requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement—Growth Management Area and is eligible for
annexation.
The site is located within the I-25 Regional Plan and the I-25 Sub Area Plan.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: County—Commercial, FA-1, Multi-Family; Partially developed commercial (Interchange
Business Park) and residential (Sunflower Subdivision)
S: City—Industrial and Urban Estate;Vacant(Galatia Annexation,230 acres,includes 100-acre
Poudre School District property)
E: County—R-1; Residential (Clydesdale Park Subdivision)
W: County—Commercial; (West of I-25 — a variety of commercial uses)
Zoning:
The proposed zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. This district is intended
to be a setting for a wide range of low density housing combined with complementary and
supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the
residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide
range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that
invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the
larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center
provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center
as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this district shall be arranged to
form part of an individual neighborhood.
I-25 Regional Communities Corridor Plan and 1-25 Sub Area Plan:
The parcel is located within the area identified as the I-25 Regional Communities Corridor Plan,
adopted by City Council in November of 2001. In addition, the parcel is located within a subset of
this Corridor Plan known as the I-25 Sub Area Plan.
The I-25 Sub Area Plan is in Final Draft stage and is scheduled for Council consideration on May
6, 2003. While it may seem premature to consider an annexation and zoning request prior to
adoption of the applicable Sub Area Plan, significant input was provided by Council on the
fundamental aspects of the Sub Area Plan at Council's August 27,2002 study session. (A summary
of this study session is attached.)
Council's input was clear that the I-25 Sub Area Plan shall proceed. With respect to the subject
property, Council agreed with the basic parameters of the Plan characterized by the following
provisions:
• Urban densities are expected within one-half mile of either side of State
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street) to match existing County development.
• The subject parcel should be considered for L-M-N zoning to match the
existing urban densities and to provide opportunities for affordable housing.
(Urban Estate does not provide the same opportunity.)
• The preservation of the Boxelder Creek riparian area is an important
characteristic of the Corridor.
Therefore, the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road request for annexation and zoning is in
substantial compliance with Council direction and the I-25 Sub Area Plan Final Draft.
Structure Plan Amendment:
As mentioned,the Final Draft of the I-25 Sub Area Plan,which calls for L-M-N zoning, has not yet
been considered by the Planning and Zoning Board nor adopted by the City Council. Since the
Structure Plan Map presently indicates"Rural Open Lands/Stream Corridor and Employment," an
amendment is necessary as a part of this annexation and zoning request.
Please note that the Structure Plan Map also designates I-25 as a "Special Study Corridor." This
indicates that the 1997 version of the Structure Plan did not provide sufficient guidance for land use
decision-making and that future land use considerations were anticipated.
Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(a)of the Land Use Code allows a zoning request to be justified if the proposed
request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. (The Structure Plan is a component of
the Comprehensive Plan.)
According to Council Resolution 2000-140, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment may be approved
if the City Council makes specific findings that:
• The existing City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the
proposed amendment; and
• The proposed major plan amendment will promote the public welfare and
will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City and
the elements thereof.
Based on the progress of the Draft I-25 Sub Area Plan, there is sufficient justification to meet the
requirements of Resolution 2000-140 and support an Amendment to the City's Structure Plan Map,
an element of the Comprehensive Plan.
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Condition of Annexation:
The owner is willing to commit to preserving the 100-year floodplain of Boxelder Creek, as
currently defined and mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as permanent open
space thus fulfilling the vision of the I-25 Sub Area Plan to preserve open vistas along stream
corridors. This commitment is contained within the Annexation Ordinance as a condition.
Annexation Impact Report:
At the January 7, 2003 consideration of the Initiating Resolution, Council requested that Staff
analyze the ability of the subject parcel to be served with an urban level public services. An
Annexation Impact Report has been prepared and is attached. This report concludes that water,
sewer, electrical, natural gas and telephone can be provided at the urban service level. Further, the
site is located within the Boxelder Creek Stormwater Drainage Basin which has been mapped for
the City's 100-year floodplain based on the new rainfall criteria.
The subject site is contiguous to three urban-level County subdivisions located to the north between
the subject parcel and East Mulberry. A collector street is planned to extend into the site linking the
parcel to East Mulberry Street.
In conclusion, the subject parcel is within one-half mile of East Mulberry and abuts three County
subdivisions developing under urban densities. The site is one-half mile west of the eastern limit
of the Growth Management Area leaving ample opportunity for density to transition, or"feather,"
to the edge as defined by County Road#5.
Findings:
1. The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins,as contained in the recently amended Intergovernmental
Agreement—Growth Management Area.
2. The parcel meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for annexation by the City of
Fort Collins.
3. The proposed Structure Plan Amendment is justified by being in compliance with the Final
Draft of the I-25 Sub Area Plan and meets the requirements of Resolution 2000-140.
4. The requested zone district, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, is in
conformance with the Final Draft of the I-25 Sub Area Plan and matches the existing level
of urban development approved in Latimer County.
5. On January 7, 2002, City Council approved a Resolution which accepts the annexation
petition and determines that the petition is in compliance with State law.
6. The annexation has 36.47% of its perimeter boundary contiguous with existing city limits
which exceeds the required one-sixth as mandated by State law.
7. The parcel is found to have a community of interest with the City and the parcel is expected
to urbanize shortly.
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
8. The annexation is located within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
9. At the request of City Council, an Annexation Impact Report has been prepared which
indicates that the parcel is able to be served with an urban level of municipal services.
10. The parcel is one-half mile west of County Road #5 which is the edge of the Growth
Management Area.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
On December 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Board took the following three actions:
• Voted 5-2 to recommend an amendment to the City's Structure Plan Map.
• Voted 7- 0 to recommend annexation into the municipal boundary.
• Voted 5-2 to recommend placement into the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zone district.
i
•
• RESOLUTION 2003-024
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition for annexation and zoning of certain property
located on the east side of Interstate Highway 25 and approximately one-quarter mile south of State
Highway 14,which property is known as the "State Highway 14-East Frontage Road Annexation";
and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed zoning for the State Highway 14-East
Frontage Road Annexation complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive
Plan,as well as the Key Principles of the City's Structure Plan,but does not comply with the present
land use designation shown on the City's Structure Plan Map for that location; and
WHEREAS,the Council has determined that the proposed State Highway 14-East Frontage
Road proposed zoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's
Comprehensive Plan except for the City's Structure Plan Map; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should
be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
• COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is
in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the State Highway 14-East Frontage Road
Annexation and zoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals,principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 18th day of February,
A. D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
0
City Clerk
• RESOLUTION 2003-025
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE STATE HIGHWAY 14-EAST FRONTAGE ROAD ANNEXATION
WHEREAS,annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of
Fort Collins for property to be known as the State Highway 14 -East Frontage Road 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 near future;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 State
Highway 14 - East Frontage Road 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
18th day of February, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
• City Clerk
. ORDINANCE NO. 032, 2003
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
STATE HIGHWAY 14 - EAST FRONTAGE ROAD ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS,Resolution 2003-003,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 TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP
7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15,
BEING MONUMENTED AT THE EASTERLY END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM
CAP ON A#6 REBAR STAMPED "LS 24307" AND AT THE WESTERLY END
BY A 3"ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED"RBD,INC,LS 17483"IS ASSUMED TO
BEAR N89°30'38" W, A DISTANCE OF 2643.04 FEET.
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE
N89°30'38"W,ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/2,A DISTANCE OF
55.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON
THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25
FRONTAGE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EXEMPTION PLAT,
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1985, AS RECEPTION NO. 85062073, LARIMER
COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE N00°19'37" E ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-
OF-W AY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1011.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
TRACT ONE OF SAID EXEMPTION PLAT; THENCE S 89°40'58" E ON SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1171.13 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF;THENCE S00'29'22"W A DISTANCE
OF 403.53 FEET; THENCE S 89°32'33" E A DISTANCE OF 1417.34 FEET TO
THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE S00°15'39" W ON SAID
EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 612.49 FEET TO THE CENTER 1/4
CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE N89"30'38" W ON THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 2588.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF
. BEGINNING.
be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City,to be known as
the State Highway 14 -East Frontage Road 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 Latimer 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.
Section 4. That any application for approval of a Project Development Plan for the land
described within this annexation shall include that portion of the annexed property located between
the current eastern edge of the one hundred year flood plain of Boxelder Creek as currently defined
by the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the westerly property boundary
of the annexed property (being the right-of-way of the I-25 eastern Frontage Road) as a part of the
Project Development Plan but which part shall remain in an open and natural condition.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
February, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of March, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of March, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2
ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2003
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 STATE HIGHWAY 14 -EAST FRONTAGE ROAD 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 2.8 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 be, and the same hereby is, changed and
amended by including the property known as the State Highway 14-East Frontage Road 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 Larimer, State of
Colorado, to wit:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP
7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15,
BEING MONUMENTED AT THE EASTERLY END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM
CAP ON A#6 REBAR STAMPED "LS 24307" AND AT THE WESTERLY END
BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED"RBD,INC,LS 17483"IS ASSUMED TO
BEAR N89°30'38" W, A DISTANCE OF 2643.04 FEET.
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE
N89°30'38"W,ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/2,A DISTANCE OF
55.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON
THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25
FRONTAGE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EXEMPTION PLAT,
RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1985, AS RECEPTION NO. 85062073, LARLMER
. COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE N00`19'37" E ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1011.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
TRACT ONE OF SAID EXEMPTION PLAT;THENCE S 89'40'58" E ON SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1171.13 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF;THENCE S00'29'22"W A DISTANCE
OF 403.53 FEET; THENCE S 89'32'33" E A DISTANCE OF 1417.34 FEET TO
THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NW 114; THENCE S00*15'39" W ON SAID
EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 612.49 FEET TO THE CENTER 1/4
CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE N89'30'38" W ON THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 2588.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
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 be, and the same hereby is,changed and amended by showing
that the above-described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That the City Engineer 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 18th day of
February, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of March, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of March, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
II -�
■
` C
\ 4
•• N\.
III \\��e.�l, �.
- \1
V\N.\V
\NC\
.. 111 11 1 111
1
� 1
......., . ' ��
n:,....... ..emu.....;.."�m.'
i
• lis.a y_y°L
e u � wr-•i �� 11111..�..vaon_. n
®u �,® - �■►��i asp
�� ����i���,j �1r�iniii■r■
dcaemn-r�omnrmv -
s
r el.
I
• - � _ -.-emu �u
i -
�- uu
0 now
Galatia
Properties
. . - - . . . 1
- do
. • • •
• - 111 - - I
3
G
W
,
a
`'v,,.{
s ma• ...ma r,¢a'&� &Mule : I .. .....
.SibD r
711
OmamEE HORDE i•-.•• ..
Commertlal Corridor
Neighborhood Commercial District
Canmunity Commerdal District
Emplornent triclnft
Industrial District -. ..... .� .. ......._._
MNeighmD (Mized-Use
l.ow Density Mixed-Use :'M
NeigMorhood((5-8 uniWaae)
_] Urban Estate(2 du/ace)
7--: Rural Subdivislon
Q`
River and Stream Corridors $S � � "� >F � yrn
) _.. .
r-- Proposed Open Space
County Agricultural ' "`£) ?0. z:E;S s �3 �J'yy" .• ar' .:
100 Year Flood Main ':'`� 1�'k. as.'s ' `• �' \ \
0 Rural/Open lands(County FA-1, r, :.. F_,:: •.• �:
Farming and 0,Open Zoning)
�- City-Owned Natural Areas TrareitCemer/Park and Ride
Conceptual Roadway Network
[JOIN Activity Center Boundary
Study Aura Boundary
Proposed Urban Growth Area(GMA)
Tim th Growth T.Cohn City URs
R.Collins
ns City Umi[s i �
3 .
U ...
3 0 3 wb 3 7 F LLR /yg/y�.� �s.
LUO:GM1tlR[dFt GLS.lY1Wr>ntVGIS .. 0't`J O�d.4
rail.XN :'••• .
Igloo
NZ
Cimino
��G/101�il/i0Aff -
�Mi� �nmmiuiu�e MENNESS
m
Ism�I';
Boom
l
,a
1 t
n
�: +
1-7
y J \
N
_ •' r i}��llt.—IIIIl IW1(I �. • �yl\
F1 \ 6 q
a
-
>~_' ,s" i�` , f, c • q -fig
ti ' ° tiV. j3pp LS o-±s
v "
f
1a
e
- 1
Ma. .. JJP'i,Mtl
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SUMMARY
I-25 SUB AREA PLAN
AUGUST 27, 2002
The meeting began with an overview of fundamental aspects of the Plan presented by
Ken Waido of the Advance Planning Department. The key aspects are as follows:
• The Plan covers the area one-half mile on the west side and one mile on the east
side (to C.R. #5) of the interstate. The north boundary is C.R. #54 (Douglas Rd.)
and the south boundary is Carpenter Road.
• The Growth Management Boundary does not change.
• The future land use plan for the corridor calls for mostly Urban Estate zoning with
the exception of one-half mile on either side of East Mulberry which calls for
Low Density Mixed-Use.
• The Plan includes adopting a set of design standards to be incorporated into the
Land Use Code. The primary goal of the standards is to prevent the corridor from
being stripped-out with commercial development. Secondary uses are prohibited
within one-quarter mile of the interstate (as measured from the outer edge of the
frontage road boundary) which matches the Mountain Vista Area Plan.
• No single family detached housing allowed within one-quarter mile of the
interstate. Single family within the corridor will have a clustering option to
preserve open space.
• Commercial development will be set back from the interstate by a minimum of 80
feet similar to the Harmony Corridor east of Boardwalk. Commercial buildings
along the highway can have no more than 50% of the site devoted to building
frontage.
• Access to buildings are from the rear along a secondary road system, not between
the building and the highway along frontage roads.
• The Resource Recovery Farm should remain in open space with a small portion
reserved for future development.
• There are two options for the future retail/activity center. Option One is the
northeast corner of East Mulberry and I-25. Option Two is the northwest corner
of East Prospect and I-25. A chart describes the relative advantages and
. disadvantages of both. Council can provide direction on emphasizing one over
the other or preserving both.
• Providing opportunities for affordable housing is goal that is carried over from
the Regional Plan. A chart describes the relative differences between the housing
densities allowed in the Urban Estate (U-E)zone versus the Low Density Mixed-
Use (L-M-N) zone. Most of the City's affordable housing opportunities are in the
Medium Density Mixed-Use zone. The L-M-N contains an incentive for
affordable housing projects on ten acres or more to achieve a density of 12
d.u./acre. The U-E zone is capped at a maximum of 2 d.u./acre and contains no
affordable housing bonus. L-M-N, therefore, is a better zone district to offer the
affordable housing opportunity.
• There are two parcels in the Sub Area that are vacant and within one-half mile of
East Mulberry, and, therefore, eligible for L-M-N zoning. One is 27 acres north
of Mulberry and one is 47 acres south of Mulberry.
• Multi-family housing is a permitted secondary use in Activity Centers which
would provide an opportunity for affordable housing.
This concluded Ken Waido's overview of the major Plan elements. The Mayor then
opened up the floor to Councilmembers for questions.
Mayor: The Mayor had some questions about increasing the.opportunity for
affordable housing and stated that he sees a need for more affordable housing potential.
Marty Tharp: Concerned about existing County zoning within the Plan boundary.
Ken Waido: Within the Plan area, County zoning includes O, Open which allows a
maximum of one unit per 10 acres, FA-1 zoning which allows a maximum of one unit per
2.29 acres, or with sewer, allows two units per acre. There is a mix of County zoning
along Mulberry with M-1 for manufactured homes and R, Residential which allows 3
units per acre.
Marty Tharp: Concerned about floodplain issues;
Ken Waido: The Cooper Slough is on the west and Boxelder Creek on the east side of
the interstate. The Boxelder floodplain includes the main channel as well as a small
break-out area at a sharp bend in the channel. This break-out area is a spillover where the
water flows south and then works its way back into the main channel. Density can be
shifted out of the floodplain by clustering as long as overall density does not exceed the
mandated maximums.
David Roy: Does the County need to be involved?
Ken Waido: Yes, we meet with the County planning staff as we have on other Sub
Area Plans in the Growth Management Area like Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek. The
County grants us the ability to plan areas within the G.M.A.
2
• David Roy: Concerned about the northeast comer of I-25 and Prospect. Do our
proposed land uses match the existing County zoning? Would like to see an aerial of
existing uses compared with the proposed land uses and concerned about role the County
plays in development of our Sub Area plans.
Karen W.: We always work with the County as part of all our Sub Area plans.
Ken Waido: In this case, the County is involved but not a partner like in the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Bill Bertchy: Concerned about the setback for housing. What about Waterglen?
Ken Waido: Waterglen would have to be setback one-quarter mile under the proposed
design standards.
Bill Bertchy: Questions about L-M-N zoning.
Ken Waido: L-M-N zoning is proposed for the area one-half mile on either side of East
Mulberry to match the established land use pattern approved, developed and developing
in the County.
. Bill Bertchy: Why not L-M-N on one-half mile either side of Prospect?
Ken Waido: This area is vacant with no established land use pattern.
Greg Byme: The Plan suggests that L-M-N is appropriate for either side of Mulberry
but not Prospect. Further, L-M-N would not be palatable for the east side of the interstate
along Prospect Road.
Eric Hamrick: Do we go to boards and commissions after study session?
Ken Waido: Yes we go to boards for input but we come to Council for policy direction.
Eric Hamrick: What did the P & Z think? Why don't we have minutes? Would prefer to
review minutes.
Ken Waido: We had a forum earlier in the year.
Eric Hamrick: What about P & Z's big packet?
John Fischbach: That's what Council received last time we had a study session on
this item.
Marty Tharp: Can you tell me more about open lands?
3
Ken Waido: There are three areas on the plan designated as open lands. First is the
Resource Recovery Farm. Second is the west side of Boxelder Creek on the Kaplan
property. The third area is up north.
Greg Byrne: Keep in mind that the new rainfall criteria for stormwater management
results in larger stormwater detention ponds providing de-facto open space.
Eric Hamrick: Could you explain the design standards?
Ken Waido: Our intent is to adopt the design standards for inclusion into the Land Use
Code at the same time as the adoption of the Plan.
Eric Hamrick: Could go into some detail about the 80-foot setback and the one-quarter
mile setback? How are these measured?
Ken Waido: These setbacks are measured at the outer edge of the public right-of-way
for I-25. This means that as the frontage roads bulge out away from the highway, the
setbacks bulge out correspondingly.
Eric Hamrick: Do we have these setbacks in place now?
Joe Frank: No.
Greg Byrne: In fact, under the current condition, we have just the opposite with our
"build-to" lines.
Eric Hamrick: I think that 80 feet is too close to an interchange or highway.
Joe Frank: Keep in mind the setback is measured from the outermost edge of the
right-of-way.
Eric Hamrick: Could you explain more about the one-quarter mile setback?
Ken Waido: Within one-quarter mile of the interstate right-of-way, secondary uses and
residential single family lots would be prohibited. Between one-quarter and one-half
mile of the interstate, residential lots are encouraged to be clustered leaving open vistas.
Eric Hamrick: I am concerned about air quality and the impact of residential so close to
the interstate. I suggest that one-quarter mile setback is not adequate and could pose a
health risk. Have we done a study air quality? I recall seeing a study that it is not healthy
to have residential near the interstate. I recall that Nancy York may have some
knowledge about this study.
Mayor: I'm concerned about a reference to a study. Do we know if its factual? Is
it scientific?
4
• Ken Waido: We will try to obtain this study and evaluate it.
Kurt Kastein: I'm concerned about having sufficient land for affordable housing. City
Plan calls for a 20-year buildable supply of land. This ties into the inventory of land
analysis. This is one of the bullet items in City Plan.
Ken Waido: Yes, the City Plan Monitoring Report indicates that we are in a 13-15 year
timeframe of land inventory.
Kurt Kastein: Do we still want a 20-year buildable supply of land? I suggest expanding
the L-M-N to provide more housing.
Kurt Kastein: I have a question about the 80-foot setback. Does this apply to the L-M-N
area?
Ken Waido: Actually, in both the L-M-N and U-E areas, the residential setback is one-
quarter mile.
Kurt Kastein: Does this go beyond the current L-M-N standards?
Ken Waido: Yes.
• David Roy: How many affordable units are vacant right now?
Marty Tharp: The Fort Collins Housing Authority has a vacancy rate of 11-12% which
is unusually high. I don't know if this is just a blip.
Karen W.: Let's leave our options open. I suggest we keep the L-M-N and that we
keep the 20-year buildable supply timeframe.
Kurt Kastein: Secondary roads are preferred for primary access to properties versus the
frontage roads?
Ken Waido: Yes.
Kurt Kastein: I'm concerned about the parallel road system and its potential cost. I
would like to see a diagram or a master street plan, including the proposed zone changes.
Eric Hamrick: I'm concerned about the general direction we are going regarding this
whole area.
There followed a long discussion among the mayor and Council about City Council
direction from the last study session on this matter. Topics included roadways, the
master street plan, downgrading four-lane arterials to three-lane, and the funding of
highway interchange improvements.
•
5
Mayor:Let's now move from questions to providing some direction for Staff.
Kurt Kastein: My preference is to elevate the Prospect site as the commercial area.
Marty Tharp: My preference is that the commercial should be along Mulberry since that
interchange is on a higher priority for future improvements. Mulberry already has four
lanes whereas Prospect only has two lanes.
Kurt Kastein: Looking back at Ken's comparison chart on the two sites, I see that it
favors Prospect. I wonder if we could preserve both as an option.
Greg Byrne: That possibility is not unreasonable. Our primary objective is to keep
local arterial traffic off the interstate. This requires a circulation system of collectors and
minor arterials.
Kurt Kastein: I am interested in creating more L-M-N.
Ken Waido: This may cause some re-classification of some roadways to be up-graded.
Bill Bertchy: We need to move forward. I feel positive about the design standards. I
prefer that the Resource Recovery Farm remain open as this will add value to the
corridor. Regarding the choice of the two locations for the future activity center, I like
preserving the two options. Perhaps the Mulberry site could be more regional in scope
and the Prospect be smaller. I am comfortable with the land use pattern.
Eric Hamrick: I also agree that we should move forward and bring the Plan to the various
boards and commissions. I am concerned about air quality and the proximity of
residential next to the interstate. I prefer that we purchase the entire Resource Recovery
Farm. I prefer Mulberry as the site of the activity center. I prefer limited activity at
Prospect with a feathering of density east toward the edge of the G.M.A. I have some
concerns about placing affordable housing near the interstate and near the Boxelder
floodplain.
Ken Waido: Most of the Urban Estate land is away from the floodplain.
Mayor: I prefer that we keep houses out of the floodplain.
Kurt Kastein: I have an idea. If we sell the Resource Recovery Farm, we should take the
proceeds and provide a rebate to the rate payers. We should keep a portion for
development and capture the value of property and sales tax revenue. The Mulberry
option for the activity center is fine, but I prefer that we keep the option open at Prospect
as well. The 20-year buildable supply of land is important. Our kids are growing up and
need to be able to live here. Only a 13 —15 year supply is available. I prefer swapping
some Urban Estate land in favor of L-M-N land. I am concerned about future costs of
roads.
6
. Marty Tharp: The design standards are good in that they avoid the strip mall
development pattern. I like the idea of preserving the Resource Recovery Farm as open
space. I prefer Mulberry as the site of the regional activity center since it's already a
commercial corridor. Prospect is more employment and industrial oriented with limited
road access. Regarding affordable housing, I don't like it so far out on the fringe. I
prefer that it be closer in and convenient to services. I prefer the feathering of density out
to the County open lands.
Karen W.: The design standards are good. I prefer that we sell the Resource
Recovery Farm on the open market. Regarding the location of the activity center, I
suggest we keep our options open on both sites. Affordable housing is best allowed in
the L-M-N where the opportunity for the density bonus is available, not in the U-E. The
present vacancy rate at the Housing Authority is a cyclical blip.
David Roy: I am also comfortable with the design standards but concerned about the
economic impact of parallel roads. This could become expensive. I prefer that the entire
Resource Recovery Farm remain open. Mulberry should be the priority for the regional
activity center but keep the option open on Prospect as a second choice. Affordable
housing should be closer in near services with less distance to travel. I am concerned
about air quality and the relationship of housing near I-25.
Karen W.: Keep in mind that L-M-N provides an opportunity for affordable housing.
It does not mean that if we zone land L-M-N, it automatically develops as an affordable
housing project.
Mayor: I agree, and just as L-M-N provides an opportunity for affordable housing,
it can support high-end housing just as well. I agree that we should preserve the
Resource Recovery Farm as open space but I like Kurt's idea about a rebate. I think
either Mulberry or Prospect are suitable for an activity center, both are workable, but I
have a preference for Prospect. Keep in mind that development is market driven. I am
not convinced that the density bonus allowed for affordable housing in the L-M-N really
works.
7
ANNEXATION IMPACT REPORT
NAME OF ANNEXATION:
State Highway 14— East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning
DATE OF REVIEW BY THE FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL:
February 18, 2003 and March 4, 2003
The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements of CRS 31-12-108.5 which indicates a
municipality shall prepare an annexation impact report and file a copy of the report with the
Board of County Commissioners governing the area proposed to the annexed.
I. Attached to this report are the following:
a. A vicinity map;
b. A map showing the present boundaries of the City of Fort Collins and the Growth
Management Area (GMA) in the vicinity of the above referenced annexation. The
GMA represents has been agreed to by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners
and the Council of the City of Fort Collins and contained in the
. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH
MANAGEMENT AREA;
c. A map of stormwater basins, ditches, canals, and waterways;
d. The City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan;
e. A map of Sewer Service Areas and Major Sewer Interceptors;
f. A map of Water District Service Areas;
g. A map of Electrical Service Territories within UGA Boundary; and
h. An Annexation Map.
II. This is a voluntary annexation and zoning of an area approximately 47.15 acres
located on the east side of the 1-25 East Frontage Road approximately one-quarter mile
south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). The annexation meets CRS 31-12-
104 that not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contiguous
with the City of Fort Collins.
a. The property making up this annexation is owned by: Imago Enterprises.
b. The above referenced annexation will be zoned as LMN — Low Density Mixed Use
. Neighborhood District. Municipal services will be extended into the area as
development occurs. Municipal services, such as police protection, are financed from
the City's General Fund.
c. The following districts presently provide service with the above referenced annexation:
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Poudre School District
FIRE DISTRICT
Poudre Fire Authority
HOSPITAL DISTRICT
Poudre Valley Hospital District
PEST CONTROL DISTRICT
Larimer County Pest Control
SANITATION DISTRICT
Boxelder Sanitation District
WATER DISTRICT
ELCO Water District
ELECTRIC POWER
Excel Energy Company
III. The City Clerk must notify, via certified mail, those districts providing service in the area to
be annexed (as per above list), no later than 25 days before the Public Hearing on the
annexation.
* Service Territories
Within UGA Boundary
DATE: 11 /6 / 01
i
I � �
► K LT:.
i
L VINE DR.
AR/
I
YUU3ERRY
r—�
w PROSPECT MEET
O
N W
I W
W. DRAKE i E. DRAKE
T
W
0
W. HORSEY TX RD.
g
I 'U
1 car' R . se
City of Fort Collins
g I
— Urban Growth Boundary � ---i--L-- -;'""""" -"� •
s I i
® PSCo. Service Area
REA Service Area COUNTY RD
N
N
K\DATA\USX\PSCOREA
lL n �Fq
�4
Lot
•� T.^fir �
i} rr �yy
` E
yfL iL •`` � mills
(� ■w
PIN �111
r� i.
n� II rIr a sur .....
_.
6 rr�ari --mulIJS.,�i7rll
�► nMI-IM-le p- nirirrrr
�-r�yy..nr.a
1)Fe '✓f�191�1` �'�,
r :n
r r .111
r . II-
r r .
r
Sewer Service Areas and
Major Sewer Interceptors
FORT" OLLINS 70,
i 1
RAI
fig !T7
t !
"s el
as
i.
i
f • �.. � •, 1. _
• � r I
• r � .5 1(`
i
LEGEND. i
Mein Sever Lrve
I — Oreen GMWK Alm Line
I Ira 5000 tr _
Printed: dmuary It, ^ - -- -
' , CIC�J Iix't Cbllim
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Water District Service Areas
--
r g^F
Tp
I i
i
r
i
1
r
�'p •+, nT �� �� ,Ltd �il���((�i `i'�\a 3 ��; e�
-� 3
i
g Tyr, : �� •...••.
LEGEND:
M.inmur Lim.
— wn.n ar..mn�nF um
r C yLl
I � F UllmalaebM Vlnler dntln ���\
u LCmm�en.eFr lMrl.r d.nKr I Inch 5000 Feet ._ ___ •—• ��Z�S.z--��) .
�� Wea Fnn arum.wMm da l orinled. January 11, 200,2
(il of laLG0111 n
CiIYe.Fort UlFn.'MIw Ou\Xel I
CITY,OFFORT COLLINS
nrne•n^u•A< i9 1 -i
r..w u
� t i
L wvnn.x;rin rw -
ry. . I�-n.••,•r�«uo-
i 1
w Vn DM � ��� ^- w � � 1
S 'ry
i a
1—3M cnv M1n Lat.
•
� \ S,p:
r -
4
1 t F WAKI N d
ri
i
FJIm 4,
_ __ __ _ W ICP1_ __ •:
1
I , l
1
-✓-_.-_. -iA i ._l T
I L
l �
Legend f Vir P[I
Street Center Linea
. Railroad -
City Limits
N -
Urban Growth Area
Water Features r "• I I...., Ii
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MASTER STREET PLAN
m ,
i
•
.arum � -•, - �. -
-
S• ! fy1�� � � '1. C
i
r- R
� I n
•
I
nn e.11
r • � u4r � '
3Y P
;e
a ,
s =
� 4
worn tllhrr rnllnrlor and final •------
�� .wrn nw sMrwn will be Avckprd
in M1¢arrn anv wiN adrplyd rvbarra, "-------- "" "•-- '
rorri and mighborhrrcrdpbn.olfhr rilY •„E:.w -__-__It
i
11 CI NO
�, InlrrrM1anFr
'ad^{rpa,a Ind lntrrmrlinn
Map,Mrnial fi la"
Maia,Arl-11.la—Mrynnd 71111
A,trrlal 4 lan—
it M1nm rnrrrrlal)lames n �--
n
i nnr w.yn lv,'al :
r n°r' )I "r` I Inch = 5000 leel
G19 m y
i Primed: Jarwlny 15, 2002 1'
O xnarsr pdarnn rn.d,4„ '' • " � ".. '•. Cli LywPat(oil n�
i F, E
KAPLAN CO MPA NY
I N C O R F O R A T E D
November 20, 2002
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Community Planning and Environmental Services
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: State Highway 14 /East Frontage Road Annexation
(formerly Prospect/East Frontage Road Annexation)
Dear Ted:
This letter is a follow-up to our November 4, 2002 meeting, which included Ken
Waido and Joe Frank, to discuss resurrecting the above-referenced annexation
petition, submitted to the city July 13, 2000. This annexation and zoning have
been on hold with the city for nearly two and one-half years in anticipation of city
adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
• I understand from our meeting that there is currently no timeframe for adoption of
the 1-25 Subarea Plan other than now linking the plan to the five-year update to
City Plan. However, and as we discussed, the work already completed by staff
and consultants plus the numerous public hearings and City Council work
sessions present a planning foundation for identifying strategic open space areas
and residential densities in the vicinity of this annexation. This progress, coupled
with existing land use characteristics surrounding this property, provide a
sufficient public policy basis to proceed with annexation and zoning.
The following is a property description, background information, justifications for
the requested Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning district, and the
"open space conditions" we discussed as being part of the annexation petition:
1. Property Description
This 47.15 acre property is located on the east side of Interstate 25 between
Prospect Road and State Highway 14, with approximately 1,012 feet of
frontage along the east frontage road. The property is in the city's existing
Urban Growth Area, with 36 percent of the border contiguous to the city limits
and 64 percent contiguous to urban density development as defined by the
Land Use Code.
�'$r0 /mow-/in Gl' dri✓C 1 v�� ^vmsar -�- • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 970/226-6819 • Fax 970/287-9256
The property appears to be consistent with both the City's Compact Urban
Growth Standards (requiring only 1/6"' contiguity) and Adequate Public
Facilities criteria as stated in the Land Use Code. There are 1) improved
collector street access from Carriage Parkway to the east, 2) adequate
sanitary sewer extending through the property, 3) a 12 inch domestic water to
the east boundary, and 4) an existing storm water conveyance and outflow
location on the property.
Directly to the south is the Galatia Annexation at the northeast intersection of
1-25/ Prospect Road in the city limits. This 230 acre undeveloped property is
comprised of industrial, commercial and residential land uses and includes a
100 site along Prospect Road and owned by the Poudre R-1 School District
for a future high school location.
Three developed county subdivisions in the UGA border the property to the
north and east:
• Interchange Business Park, consisting of 65 acres at the southeast
intersection of 1-25/Prospect Road.
• Sunflower Subdivision, a senior-oriented, modular home neighborhood
on 37 acres at 5 du/acre. Rezoned 1981 in the county from FA-1 to R-1.
• Clydesdale Subdivision, a single-family neighborhood on 80 acres at 3
du/acre. Rezoned 2000 in the county from FA-1 to M-1.
Each of these three developments are subject to the IGA agreement between
the city and the county requiring future annexation to the city following the
establishment of the required 1/6"' contiguity to city limits.
The west approximately 10 acres of the property (less 2 acres along the
frontage road) are in the existing Boxelder Creek federal floodplain. The creek
traverses north-south through the middle of this 10 acre area. This floodplain
is eligible for modification to allow development. Such floodplain revisions
have already occurred in the Interchange Business Park to the north where
there is now commercial development.
The city is currently evaluating the Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough
Floodplain and is tentatively showing, before any master planning,
approximately 12 acres east of the designated floodplain as a sheet flow,
"shallow flooding" area. According to Marsha Hilmes-Robinson with the city's
Storm Water Department, this 12 acre area may be eliminated pursuant to the
updating to the city's storm water master plan, currently in process. But
otherwise, the property could be filled and channeled to allow development.
2
2. Background
The 47.15 acre area of the State Highway 14/East Frontage Road Annexation
(previously the "Prospect/East Frontage Road Annexation") was submitted to
the city in July 2000. The annexation was in conjunction with a
comprehensive rezoning request by another applicant for the adjoining
Galatia Property at the northeast intersection of 1-25 and Prospect Road. In
staffs September 1, 2000 letter to the applicants, staff recommended that an
amended petition be submitted before any further processing of that rezoning
request. An amendment to the rezoning has not been submitted by that
applicant, and the rezoning application is inactive.
Regarding the subject annexation, staff supported the annexation but
recommended that the property be zoned T-transition until the adoption of the
1-25 Subarea Plan, which was estimated to occur in the spring of 2001.
Rather than proceeding with the annexation and a "holding" zone district, the
applicant waited for the spring 2001 Plan adoption. The applicant was then
advised by staff to expect an August or September 2001 Plan adoption, which
also did not occur.
Staff is not longer giving a timeline for the 1-25 Subarea Plan. In that the Plan
attempts to address the controversial issue of where to place the Growth
Management Area boundary east of 1-25, any adoption of an 1-25 Subarea
Plan is now intertwined with the ongoing five year update to City Plan,
scheduled as an 18 months process, but which may also take considerably
longer.
The question of whether the existing Growth Management Area boundary
one-half mile east of this property should or should not change is not material
to the zoning of this property for several reasons. First, delaying land use
decisions based upon something that may or may not change in the future is
unfair and legally questionable.
Second, the City has more than adequate planning criteria through existing
policies to rationally determine a land use for this property. Finally, the two
and one-half year effort on the 1-25 Subarea Plan has certainly produced
sufficient additional direction for zoning this 47 acre property at the time of
annexation, despite the outcome of the GMA boundary question.
3. Justifications for LMN Zoning District
Two significant outcomes of the 1-25 Subarea Plan planning process to date
support the LMN zoning district for this property:
3
a. The current, "final draft" of this planning effort shows the LMN zoning
district for the entire 47 acre property, including the approximately 10
acres facing the frontage road and currently zoned C-commercial in
Larimer County.
b. The planning process has identified three (3) significant locations in the
Fort Collins portion of the 1-25 corridor for open lands, which locations
were discussed with City Council at its January 22, 2002 work session.
One such location is the approximately 10 acre frontage of this property,
most of which is-in the existing Boxelder Creek floodplain. The LMN
zoning district for the entire property allows the applicant to support this
open land objective within this commercially-zoned area.
The applicant would concede to a downzoning from C-commercial for this
west portion of the property. The applicant would also agree to preserve
the open lands character of that portion as part of the site design for the
entire property. This would contribute to the conservation and open land
objectives of both the City-adopted 1-25 Regional Plan and City Council's
January 22, 2002 direction for the Subarea Plan, while placing the
appropriate zoning on the property.
Designation of this property for the LMN zoning district in the "final draft" of
the 1-25 Sub Area Plan is indicative of many factors which support this land
use, including the following:
a. Abutting Development. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the property's perimeter
is contiguous to existing "urban density development" as defined in the
Land Use Code. This existing development is either commercial or a
residential density in the county similar to the city's LMN zoning district.
b. Neighboring Employment Potential. The property is within one mile of one
of the highest concentrations of employment and industrial land uses in the
entire Urban Growth Area. The Interstate Business Park is adjacent to the
north, and 85 acres of Industrially-zoned land in the city limits is to the
south. Over 160 acres of E-employment zoned land is on the west side of
1-25 and also in city limits.
c. Neighboring Shopping Potential. The property is also within one mile of
one of the highest concentrations of retail and commercial land uses in the
entire Urban Growth Area. The 1-25/Prospect intersection includes
approximately 25 acres of C-commercial zoned property. Also, the
potential exists for a regional "activity center" as defined by the 1-25
Regional Plan at both the NE corner of I-25/Prospect and the NE corner of
1-25/State Highway 14.
4
d. 1-25 Access. A fully-improved collector road, Carriage Parkway, dead ends
. at the east boundary and connects this property to a signalized intersection
at State Highway 14 about one-half mile east of 1-25. The property is within
minutes from the improved I-25/State Highway 14 interchange. Easy
access to 1-25 reduces vehicle-miles-traveled and has low demand on
existing city roadways
e. Existing Infrastructure. The property has improved collector street access
from Carriage Parkway to the east, adequate sanitary sewer extending
through the property, a 12 inch domestic water line to the east boundary,
and an existing storm water conveyance and outflow location.
f. Inconsistent with Purpose of Urban Estate District. The proposed LMN
zoning district is the lowest density planned residential district in the Land
Use Code, except for the Urban Estate District (U-E), where the maximum
density is 2 d.u./acre. The main purposes of the U-E district are to assure
compatibility with adjoining, existing low-density subdivisions and to
provide a transition between intense urban development and rural or open
lands (Division 4.1A of Land Use Code). Neither purpose is applicable with
regard to this annexation.
4. Open Space Conditions Accompanying Annexation and LMN Zoning
The applicant is agreeing to retain the open land character of the
approximately 10 acre frontage of the property, defined as the area between
the frontage road and the east boundary of the existing federal floodplain.
Most of this property, excluding about two (2) acres, is in the Boxelder Creek
floodplain. This represents a downzoning from the existing C-commercial
zoning district in the county.
This area has been identified by the City as one of the three (3) potential
locations for open lands along the City's portion of the 1-25 corridor. Achieving
this open lands objective through voluntary means is an opportunity to
advance the Open Lands and Natural Areas objectives of the 1-25 Regional
Plan at no public acquisition cost. The applicant would in turn require of the
city that the entire 47 acres be zoned LMN and qualify as part of the net land
area for the purpose of density calculations.
In summary, 64 percent of this property adjoins urban density development, and
the prerequisite water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and improved roadway
access are to the property. The "final draft" of the city's 1-25 Subarea Plan
indicates the requested LMN zoning for the property. The "final draft" also
identifies the west approximate 10 acres as a significant location for open lands.
The applicant is prepared to support the conservation and open lands objectives
•
5
of both the 1-25 Regional and 1-25 Subarea Plan by setting aside this 10 acres as
open space within a development plan.
The applicant leaves to your guidance whether a draft annexation agreement
including these conditions for annexation should accompany the petition or
whether the conditions are sufficiently clear to be discussed without a draft
agreement as part of the public hearing process. Attached is an updated Petition
for Annexation along with ten (10) copies of the annexation map containing a
current vicinity map and the revised annexation name as the State Highway 14-E.
Frontage Road Annexation.
Thank you for the guidance from staff regarding this petition for annexation and
zoning.
Sincerely,
Lester M. Kaplan
Imago Enterprises, Inc.
6