HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/01/2015 - ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE WOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATAgenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Clay Frickey, Associate Planner
SUBJECT
Items Pertaining to the Wood Street Second Annexation and Zoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2015, Annexing Property Known as the Wood
Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Second
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The purpose of this item is to annex and zone a parcel in an enclave at 832 Wood Street. This is a City-
initiated request to annex the 16.267 acre parcel #97023-00-034 at 832 Wood Street into the City of Fort
Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Pateros Creek subdivision on September 18,
2012. As of September 18, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and annex the enclave in accordance with
Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106.
The Wood Street Second Annexation abuts the City of Fort Collins Utilities building to the north. The requested
zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The surrounding properties are existing
residential, office, park, and light industrial land uses in the City of Fort Collins.
This 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 the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an enclave annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to
policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements,
the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation
according to State law. Wood Street Second Annexation became an enclave upon the annexation of the Pateros
Creek subdivision on September 18th, 2012. As of September 18th, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and
annex the enclave in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106.
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Use
North Urban Estate (U-E) Pateros Creek subdivision: Single-family detached
South Employment (E) City of Fort Collins Utilities facility
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 2
East Public Open Lands (P-O-L) Lee Martinez Community Park
West Public Open Lands (P-O-L) Single-family detached
Employment (E) City of Fort Collins Operations Services Fleet Service
Center
The requested zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The Land Use Code
describes this zone district as follows:
Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density and large-lot
housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions
which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations
for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural
or open lands.
The property owner has expressed interest in a limited amount of additional development on the site following
the annexation process. No detailed development plan has been prepared. The City of Fort Collins has been
working with the property owner to install a geoheat exchange system that will pipe cool air from the bottom of
the pond on the site to the City Utilities building abutting to the south.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No direct economic impacts will result with this proposed annexation and zoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning request on
October 29th, 2015. The annexation and placement of the parcel into the Urban Estate zone district was on
the consent agenda. The board approved the consent agenda with a 7-0 vote.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred two weeks prior to the item going before
the Planning and Zoning Board at their scheduled public hearing on October 29th, 2015. A letter of notification
of the public hearing was mailed to all Affected Property Owners within 800 feet of the property 14 days prior to
the hearing. The Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for annexation and initial zonings
and a meeting was not held for this annexation & zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map (PDF)
2. Proposed Zoning Map (PDF)
3. Structure Plan Map (PDF)
4. Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC)
5. Powerpoint Presentation (PPTX)
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers
Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue
Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado
Emily Heinz
Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special
communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Special Hearing
October 29, 2015
Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider
Absent: None
Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Branson, Wilkinson, Burnett, Mapes, Frickey, McWilliams, Schmidt,
Ragasa and Cosmas
Agenda Review
Chair Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the following processes:
While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration,
citizen input is valued and appreciated.
The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for
each item.
Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with
city Land Use Code.
Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will
be allowed for that as well.
This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure
that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 2
Planning Director Gloss presented the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas.
Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda:
None noted.
Consent Agenda:
1. Wood Street Second Annexation
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the October 29, 2015,
Consent agenda, which includes the Wood Street Second Annexation. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick
seconded. Vote: 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Uncommon – 310 S. College Avenue
Project: Uncommon – 310 S. College Avenue
Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6-
story, mixed-use building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The site formerly
contained Perkins restaurant, which was demolished and removed in early 2015. The property is zoned
Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The proposed land uses are permitted, and the PDP is
subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The site is 35,000 square feet. Proposed building coverage is 30,600 square feet. The ground floor
consists of street-front retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet, and the upper levels contain
apartment units totaling 120 units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a
total of 248 bedrooms. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet.
125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground level below upper floor
building space, with access from the alley.
Recommendation: Denial
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 3
Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, 12 citizen emails had been received in support
of the project, an email from Eric Sutherland with concerns relating to the prominent legal issues
involved, various historic materials and evidence related to the project (857 pages) from Lucia Liley’s
office to become part of the public record, and a draft of the Quality Improvement Plans for Development
Review Process prepared by Zucker Systems. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe also stated that he was
presenting email correspondence between himself and Lucia Liley that will be designated as Exhibit 1.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mapes gave a broad PowerPoint presentation of this project, including pictorial comparisons of
the applicant’s renderings and the renderings prepared by City Staff, which indicates significant
differences with regard to building size and massing proportions, design and materials, and
character/architecture. He also discussed the affected Land Use Codes and concluded that this project
does not meet the prescribed standards, especially for adjacent historic properties, and he detailed each
standard and demonstrated the incompatible aspects of the project. He stated that the buildings are not
compatible with the surrounding buildings with respect to height, massing, and character.
Planner Branson began his presentation by calling attention to the inaccurate renderings provided by the
applicant, and he presented a set of images modeling these inconsistencies. He also stated that the
images created by Staff were meant to be compatible with the ongoing Downtown Plan, and they were
taken using a “human perspective” (approximately 5½’ off of the ground). He made comparisons
between the Uncommon building and other similar sites, concentrating on the percentage of the footprint
that would be consumed. Uncommon will use 90% of the lot, which is significantly higher than other
similar buildings.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe added that, regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)
findings, Ms. Liley had made an inquiry about adjacent historic properties, and he had provided her with
information indicating that some of those properties are questionable for historic designation purposes.
Chris Johnson, representing CA-Ventures as the applicant, stated that this location would not be housing
CSU students and that it would be multi-family residential. He discussed the pedestrian scale regarding
massing, mentioning that the models did not show the landscaping, so he feels that some of the Staff’s
models are inaccurate. He stated that the lot coverage is actually 84%, not 90%. He also discussed the
parking situation. He gave some of his personal background and the need for this project in Fort Collins.
He said that the zoning was considered, and all of the uses were allowed. He has also considered the
future development possibilities, and the construction costs involved. He praised the density of the
project and how it fits with the City plan. He indicated that his revenue has been affected already
(materials, time, etc.).
Mr. Johnson stated that due diligence has been employed through various “community listening”
opportunities, and he said that the community has been very supportive of the project overall. The
applicant is interested in maintaining economic feasibility, and they are striving to integrate this building
into the community in a sensitive way. He noted that the surroundings continue to vary, which makes
being sensitive even more challenging. He has spoken to neighbors and the community, and they have
made some changes:
Because Old Town is made up of mostly young professionals, they have removed the 4-bedroom
units and increased the smaller unit types to accommodate the demographics.
They have altered their renting model to renting by the unit, not by the bed.
They are changing their marketing practices to attract graduating CSU students.
They are reducing floor-to-floor heights and increased the setbacks.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 4
He feels the applicant has responded with multiple design solutions during the planning process, since
they were asked by Staff to consider reduction of the overall project by 1/3, which he said is economically
infeasible. In response, more concessions were made to increase outdoor space, etc. In addition, they
presented their project to the LPC and attempted to get more direction. They have subsequently
obtained a letter of support from the Armstrong Hotel. The project was denied by the LPC; he believes
that their recommendation was not warranted. They have continued their community outreach, receiving
positive input overall. In conclusion, he reviewed the overall criteria that they used when developing the
property, citing the desirability of higher density in the Downtown-Canyon Avenue subdistrict area.
Lucia Liley, 419 Canyon Avenue, is the attorney representing the applicant. She discussed the
significant, positive changes that the applicant has made in order to go forward with this project. The
nature of the disagreement with Staff has been the height and mass of the building as it relates to
neighborhood scale. These qualifications are based on subjective, qualitative metrics, which she feels
can be difficult to interpret consistently. She discussed the context of the project and the zoning issues
involved; she showed visual graphics of the neighboring blocks, the Downtown plan criteria and
considerations, the historic development of downtown, and the 1989 Downtown Plan suggestions that
taller buildings should be built amid historic buildings. She discussed the Downtown Strategic Plan
criteria and demonstrated how the City has encouraged buildings that meet the criteria that this project
strives to do. She listed the defining characteristics for the area and how they are expected to evolve
over time. She also discussed LUC 3.4.7 and 3.5.1: including height, scale, mass and bulk, along with
landscaping, architecture, pedestrian features, lighting, and parking. She questioned the historic
considerations and how they should be considered with respect to this project. She said that Staff had
acknowledged that the project had met all of the criteria for historic criteria; therefore, she questioned
what the negative impacts were specifically, saying that the applicant had reviewed the historic structures
recommended by Staff for consideration. She also discussed the LPC findings and comments, along
with the comments made by dissenting LPC members.
Eduardo Illanes, Architect representing CA-Ventures for the project, also gave a detailed presentation of
the building architecture, including the integration of the LUC into the project and the considerations
shown to uphold the Fort Collins landscape and heritage. He spoke of how daily life would be enhanced
and the adjustments and concessions that had been made over the project development. He discussed
in detail the building and surrounding area designs, including the rationale for the landscaping,
sidewalks, and open spaces. He compared the various building facades with older surrounding
buildings. He discussed the need for housing along with the higher desired densities prescribed by the
City plan. He mentioned the creation of the paseo, and how this will further enhance the quality of life for
Uncommon residents. Parking for residents will be mostly in the underground garage with several public
parking spaces available to the public. He discussed at length the vision for downtown and how
Uncommon fits into that vision.
Ms. Liley concluded the applicant presentations by reviewing the 2006 Strategic Plan, which had been
subsequently amended after adoption. She pointed out some of the changes, including the “75%
coverage” rule that has since been modified. She reviewed some of the features of other buildings
(setbacks, footprint, level of urbanization, height ranges, and historic significance) that had been
approved in the past (some with modifications) and how they compare with Uncommon. She
acknowledged that this project does not supply the required amount of open space; however, she
pointed out that the paseo alone has enough space to satisfy this requirement.
The Board took a break at 8:15pm and resumed at 8:25pm.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 5
Public Input
Steve Levinger, 511 Mathews Street, the owner of the Armstrong Hotel, spoke about the various
buildings that had been built and destroyed over the last 10 years and how he is in support of
this project. He doesn’t feel that historic preservation issues should be a reason for denial.
Dave Derbes, 618 Wabash Street, is a developer and spoke in support of this project. He cited
the evolution of the project and appreciates the quality and thoughtfulness of the applicant. He
also commended them for considering the City plans in place.
Justin Larson, 419 Canyon Avenue, is a neighbor and also supports the project, saying the
project meets the various codes, commending the design team overall.
Joanne Eskildsen, 210 W. Magnolia, is a neighbor and spoke in support of the project, even
though she initially did not support it. She also commended the developers.
Spiro Palmer, 901 W. Mountain Avenue, who represents Palmer Properties and owns other
local businesses, spoke in favor of this project; he stated his belief that this is a special project
and is a good reflection of the downtown overall.
Myrne Watrous, 723 W. Olive Street, spoke in support of City Staff and the Landmark
Preservation Commission, saying she feels the building is too tall and large for that area and the
parking is inadequate. She cited several other developments that do not have adequate
parking, and she suggested another location for the project.
Eric Nichols, 1401 Riverside, helped negotiate this building site transaction, and he spoke in
favor of the project, saying the code standards have been met. He was also involved in other
Fort Collins projects, and he commended the design team for providing a well-designed building
compared to similar buildings.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Ms. Liley asked to submit several other items into the records (Exhibit 2). Mr. Johnson responded to the
citizen’s question about the origin of the name “Uncommon” by explaining that the name is chosen as the
project evolves; they noticed that the project was named “Uncommon” because of the various aesthetic
features which distinguish this building from others.
Member Hobbs requested Planner Mapes to review the setbacks on all four sides of the proposed
buildings, including City right-of-way areas. Planner Mapes confirmed that there is landscaping within
the City right-of-way, and he discussed the setbacks on each street. He also reviewed the zoning
requirements for the Canyon Avenue area. Marc Ragasa, Engineering, stated that the Poudre Fire
Authority required a 5-foot setback to accommodate their truck loading needs. Member Hobbs also
asked what the reason is for the discrepancy of lot coverage stated by City staff versus the applicant.
Mr. Ragasa responded that the discrepancy is due to variations in data used by each (including
rounding). Planner Mapes indicated that the paseo has been enhanced recently, and he feels that the
applicant has met the prescribed standard.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 6
Member Hansen inquired about the ground floor public space (including the paseo) and how it will be
perceived. Mr. Illanes responded that there are no barriers to these public spaces, and they will be
accessible thru an open walkway. He added that there will be an upstairs roof area and possibly an
outdoor restaurant or retailer.
Member Heinz clarified that the common space is for the public, and she also asked other questions
regarding the retail strip and the parking spaces with regard accessibility by the public. She also asked if
the alley to the south would be improved, and Planner Mapes stated that it will remain a parking lot.
Member Hart asked Staff what kind of reduction of mass and scale would be adequate to improve the
context of the building, and Planner Mapes responded that the extent of the 5th and 6th levels are the
primary issues. Planning Director Gloss noted that this building is significantly higher than surrounding
buildings, and he feels that the transitional areas are the core issues. The code does not prescribe a
specific way to do that.
Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked why the taller heights were created for individual blocks. Planner Mapes
gave some background as to how that evolved, saying that, at that time, there were competing objectives
among various interests (citizens vs. developers). He detailed the criterion that was considered for this
particular block regarding the number of stories allowed (5-6 stories, which can have variable heights
depending on the floor height). Chair Carpenter also added how difficult those conversations had been,
since the stories were not specifically decided. Planner Mapes said there had been opposition from the
communities; therefore, standards were inserted with the idea that they should be broadly interpreted.
Member Hart also asked about the massing of this and future buildings. Planner Mapes responded that
it is always possible to have exceptions, and he showed slides indicating how blocks should be
transitioned compared to a mock-up of what Uncommon will look like once completed. Member Hansen
asked about setbacks, and Mr. Illanes responded that, from the street, we would see a step lower than
what is being proposed. There was more discussion on the building heights and the appropriate number
of stories, focusing on the transition of the proposed building and the surrounding areas. There was also
discussion on what the standards require for lot coverage and whether removing the 75% standard
would mean moving more toward an urban form. Planner Mapes stated that the purpose of the code
change was to provide more of what was desired by the community. Discussion ensued regarding the 6-
story wall on the Montezuma Alley; Planner Maps clarified that the design of that wall was left to the
compatibility standards backing up the zoning district standards. He added that the factors that led to
Staff’s findings are the combination of the height, the extent of the footprint and construction, and the
resulting East wall. While other buildings are taller or bigger, it is those elements taken together that led
to Staff findings. Member Schneider asked for clarification on what element is more important: the code
language or the Strategic Plan? Planning Director Gloss stated that there have been voids in the
building that create some open spaces, but the building is still massive without significant relief. Mr.
Illanes acknowledged that, while this is a large building, it is also divided into three sections. Planner
Mapes also stated that one of the goals of the Planning Department is to allow change to occur over time
with buildings gradually becoming taller, as opposed to this happening all at once.
There was more discussion regarding scale issues with the historic district on the east side of the
building and how the open space will be used by residents. The courtyard is 30 feet wide and 60 feet
deep; therefore, Staff believes it is unlikely that there will be sunshine in those open spaces, although Mr.
Illanes believes the sun will sometimes penetrate that area. The disposition of snow melt has not been
considered by the applicant. There was discussion regarding the compliance to standards for the
fenestration on the back wall. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked what impacts would occur if the 5th and 6th
stories were stepped back, especially along the east wall; Mr. Johnson said the impacts would be
incompatible with what has been done to date in ensuring success. The applicant had been encouraged
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 7
to put the height on the alley side in order to avoid creating the “birthday cake” effect. Member Heinz
suggested that it would be helpful to have more prescriptive code standards for transitioning.
Chair Carpenter asked adding setbacks to the East side of the building would be helpful, and Planning
Director Gloss stated that they would prefer to alter the setbacks on the west side. Karen McWilliams,
Historic Preservation Planning Manager, stated that the length of the unarticulated east wall (which is
closest to buildings in the national register district) is the most critical to maintaining proper historic
preservation elements. The Landmark Preservation Commission had previously determined that this
building is too large in this space. She also disputed some of Ms. Liley’s statements that the
compatibility is entirely about the massing, the transitioning, the setbacks and stepbacks, and the shape
of the building, rather than just a comparison to other historic buildings.
Member Hobbs asked about the 3D models presented by Staff, since they significantly conflict with the
images presented by the applicant. He asked if the models shown by staff are objective and unbiased
portrayals of the buildings. Both Planning Director Gloss and Planner Branson confirmed that these
models are as accurate and unbiased as possible. Member Hansen commented on the various
techniques of including landscaping in the mock-ups. The applicant also clarified that this project is not
considered to be “affordable housing”.
Board Deliberation
Member Schneider stated that this project supports the City plan and Strategic Plan, and he
commended the developer for trying to make concessions where possible. Member Hansen
agreed and stated that the challenge is in making the transition on the edge of the zoning
district; he is in favor of the current transition, with the exception of the East side of the building,
and he believes that the impact of that wall may be mitigated over time. Member Hobbs is not in
favor of the project as it stands based on the compatibility of the project with the surrounding
neighborhoods. He feels this is a gateway project to the historic Downtown district, and, even
though the arithmetic calculations are in line, the context of this project does not fit well.
Member Heinz would support more prescriptive measure regarding the massing of this building,
but she will still support this project. Member Hansen supports this project, and he added that
these types of structures won’t work in the future without confidence in the long-term plan.
Member Hart supports this project and thinks that this is the future of Fort Collins, even though
he agrees that the code will need some adjustments. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick is very conflicted
with this project. She believes that this project is meeting the LUC standards; therefore, she is
unable to find a good faith argument why it shouldn’t be approved, even though she doesn’t
support the design of the east wall. Chair Carpenter does not support the project because it is
right at the edge of the zoning district; she concedes that this is primarily a subjective decision.
Planner Mapes gave an overview on the modification, saying that the lower portions of the
building do comply with the specified materials. The applicant declined to provide a separate
presentation. Member Hansen stated that he is in favor of the modification and believes that the
use of these materials is appropriate.
Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification of standard to subsection 4.1.6
(D)(5)(e) Exterior Façade and Materials for the Uncommon project PDP#150013, based
upon the findings of fact on page 11 in the staff report. Member Hansen seconded. Vote:
6:1, with Member Hobbs abstaining.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 8
Member Hart made a motion to approve the Uncommon project PDP#150013 because it
complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. Member Heinz
seconded. Vote: 5:2, with Member Hobbs and Chair Carpenter dissenting.
Other Business
None noted.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:16pm.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Jennifer Carpenter, Chair
Wood Street Second Annexation Initiating Resolution
Clay Frickey
10-20-15
Overview
• Involuntary annexation
• Enclave created in September 2012
• City initiating annex for energy project
• Use cool air from lake bottom for climate control at
Utilities building
• Proposed zoning is Urban Estate (U-E)
2
Context
• Owner - Jeffrey
Lebesch
• Annexation = 16.267
acres
3
Planning & Zoning
Board Recommendation
• Planning and Zoning Board – October 29th
• On consent
• 7-0 to approve consent agenda
4
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and
requested zoning of Urban Estate with the approval of the
Ordinances on First Reading.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 157, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
WOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2015-088 stating the intent of the City to annex and initiating
annexation proceedings for the Wood Street Second Annexation, as defined therein and
described below, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the area proposed to be annexed has been
entirely contained within the boundaries of the City for a period of not less than three years prior
to this date; and
WHEREAS, the Wood Street Second Annexation complies with all other requirements
for enclave annexations set forth in Title 31, Article 12 of the Colorado Revised Statues; 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 City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the following described property, to wit:
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, AND
CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 TO
BEAR N89°14'45"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 13155, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED LS 20123, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
N00°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 342.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N85°40'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 953.72 FEET;
2. N65°32'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DUFFY
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH LINES OF SAID DUFFY ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.38 FEET;
2. N89°13'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 242.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE
SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 322.95 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, S89°17'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,272.42 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, ALSO BEING
THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00°40'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 645.41 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 708,577 SQUARE FEET (16.267 ACRES), MORE OR LESS
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Wood Street Second Annexation.
Section 3. 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 4. 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 (the “Subdistrict”). Upon inclusion into the Subdistrict, said property shall
be subject to the same mill levies and special assessments as are levied or will be levied on other
similarly situated property in the Subdistrict.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 158, 2015
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 WOOD STREET SECOND 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, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning of the Wood
Street Annexation property, as described below (the “Property”) is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed
zoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.(H)(3) of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
zoning of the Property described below and has determined that the 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 City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. 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 Wood Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property (the “Property”) is
more particularly described as:
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, AND
CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 TO
BEAR N89°14'45"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 13155, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED LS 20123, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
N00°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 342.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N85°40'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 953.72 FEET;
2. N65°32'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DUFFY
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH LINES OF SAID DUFFY ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.38 FEET;
2. N89°13'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 242.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE
SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 322.95 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, S89°17'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,272.42 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, ALSO BEING
THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00°40'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 645.41 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 708,577 SQUARE FEET (16.267 ACRES), MORE OR LESS
Section 3. 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
Property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 4. 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 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk