The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWOOD STREET ANNEXATION & ZONING - ANX120001 - CITY COUNCIL PACKET - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (9)She thinks it would be a really good thing if this comes back in some way so that we can rectify it so it doesn't happen again. She said that might be good things to have in our recommendation that Council look at that. Motion passed 6:0. Member Schmidt said we certainly are going to be better than what it might be in the County. Member Stockover said he'd caution us there. He thinks that our County staff does a great job so he personally would recommend not throwing and dirt their way. He thinks we should not taint anyone's image of the County. Member Schmidt said she shouldn't say that about the County. She should say where they have willing developers they do a great job but thei-tegulations in many cases are not as restrictive as ours nor do they encourage as mu_C_h breative thinking as ours. If there is someone who doesn't want to put a lot of.effort into a development, they don't necessarily have to in the county. Member Hatfield said whether we recommend annexation or not, the final decision is City Council's Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the Wood Street Annexation # ANX120001 with the zoning of UE based on the facts and findings on the staff report beginning on page 4. The motion includes the staff recommendation that the property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said we have a situation that we sort of have to accept this time. She would recommend that if the City really feels firmly about the no residential LOMR fill, that we add something in our Code. It wouldn't matter what ygOifbefore; this is a City requirement. Then a developer would know. As long as weJ&ve that kind of loophole, it makes it awkward. If the change is made, she thinks it'll no MeR dear to everyone in the future. = =- Member Kirkpatrick said we cannot put a conditiogon annexation butn_we put a condition on zoning that they do a full LOMR..Rkman said you probabiuld_as you do not have any legal impediment to doing itr �a might R4s a some practPi l nes that staff could discuss. Eckman said one of the prat i -pt ngthe petitioner -for annexation might have the right to withdraw this annlg on up until the 2nd reading of the ordinance by City Council. Whether that would opeitFte door for the County to approve a development in the County --doesn't know. =— Member Schmidt said she'd rather wait houses are going to be on that site. It might not necessitate ita;fuch as if t could be addressed aiPDP� Gkman He doesn't know riw&much at t5at Jun nature of the PDP. H�r�s-Robfison s the requirements are. Th is what this: to deal wittcon i aqd se* txhe PDFshows and how many could beA t3�_Ar mostly back yards; that hew*,e houses there. She asked Eckman if it said t4pt be a Stormwater Utility question. cture, tti_. Stormwater Utility can regulate the aid the 40de is pretty black and white about what tLy.sR c if you're out of the floodplain and that City Code no longer applies other than to placed on the LOMR fill application. Merfi-6 midt asked re's 3tiything that could be done such as retaining walls or land conAft in that fod lain area that is outside the LOMR area that would protect it more that wduftive Stormwater Utilities greater piece of mind. Hilmes-Robinson said if related to the rdVftntial, rO really. What they are proposing and we will require, because they're ceserng about the whole development (not just the LOMR fill piece) is the channel stabilityhe area where in 1999 we had the scour occur. Because part of the#froperty is in the floodplain, we want to make sure it's addressed. They would be required to analyze that and do some sort of mitigation to protect the backs of those lots. It might be a flood wall. Member Hatfield said he can find no legal reason to vote against the recommendation to City Council. He does have some emotional concerns. They have to do with manifest destiny but from a legal point of view he would support it. Member Carpenter said she would have to agree with Member Schmidt. This is a "toughie" and we do need to look at it so that it doesn't happen again because it sort of feels like our hands are tied in making any kind of recommendation other than yes or no. Member Hatfield said in the past we've spoken of the greater good. He's wondering where the greater good was for the community to add on another subdivision which is not in the infill area. Interim CDNS Director Kadrich said she believes in this instance, this parcel is in the Growth Management Area and as such there is an agreement between the City and County in conjunction with the planning of the urban area that these lands would be valued and at some point in time part of the urban area rather than the rural area. Member Stockover said if we were not to annex, they would still be able to proceed with their project in the County; is that correct. Eckman said he'd expect the County would not say they could do nothing with their property. Stockover asked if a piece of property borders the city, does the City still have review criteria on a coi:WVVwoiect? Ex said if it does not meet annexation requirements; we process them a provide comments. Stockover said it sounds like they POU annex it. Eckman said he wouldn't want to guarantee the cc Member Schmidt said she noticed in the blue an still in the flood fringe; does the City have 4d annexed. If there's material there would it haee just go with development? Hilmes-Robinson saic of development/building permit. With this prop( there would not be any residential structures allo material regulations for this property brrase it's regulations apply only to non-residen—% significant amount of work - cleaning ufi- he pR It's vastly improved from what it was andtatSM quite an improvement mite. `— Public Input None north of other referrals so they do on this if we do not homes that nts there if W' does that e togs would apttfy at the time Bing a residential subdivision; area. There are no floatable len . he City's floatable material the alnt has already done a Land reiWoving floatable materials. Vjjwds to be acknowledged. It is Board Disc <_ -4�- Member--48hmidt s thihat Stockover made a good recommendation earlier; if we reammend to Cit ncil t ey do not annex this parcel, and then it's very possbl,y would prod) in theounty. She thinks there are a lot more options for providing'We public go by having a better project in the City than what we might get in the Ci Oft. She thirffs the City has a lot more regulations that go with the clustering and4tWd rathefRee that happen than something like'/2 acre lots in the County. Member Smith said +fie understands some of the technical issues that are being presented. He may or may not be entirely comfortable with them but the simple matter is we have a very clear mandate as to what our purview is and there is a very clear sequence of events that we go through to bring to a property in through annexation, zoning, and PDP (Project Development Plan). He thinks we need to be very true to the process and so the question we have is whether we should annex it based on the IGA, zone it on a couple of very clear criteria. He hasn't been convinced we wouldn't recommend approval of this voluntary annexation as requested and zone it UE. He thinks whenever we make a motion, that's the way he'll be voting. I LOMR fill sites. Hilmes-Robinson said it's a very confusing difference between the City and the County. The City's standards are no residential in the 100 year floodplain. However, there was a gap in code for these LOMR-fills. The Code was silent on what to do when you went through that process and so in 2010, City Council adopted a new provision to Section 10-80 that deals with what to do on these LOMR-fills and added the restriction related to no residential on these LOMR fills so the Code was consistent with no residential in the 100 year flood plain. Hilmes-Robinson said the only other option for changing the flood plain/modifying it is the full LOMR process where you fully take into account all of the flows, all of the fill, and all of the changes being proposed to see what the impacts would lae. After that you may have to do some mitigation to be able to create more capacity"s-et-easements from other property owners, etc. The map would then be changed andi�sidential could be built on those areas that had been fully removed from the floocfp(a` rthrough the full LOMR process. Member Schmidt said one other question that c had this type of situation before — have we ev€ requirement instead of ours? Hilmes-RobinsbYf time she's been with the City. There's been Poudre River. Member Kirkpatrick asked would the modeling satisfy you or would you rreer suggested. Hilmes-Robinson said the for that piece. The other modeling that w be required by City Codd59cause of the need to do some st; protect all the lotso, pretty significant and Member %MEN all: MemktCarpenter be efiem mind do it volun �y we could be doiEcl condition on 6&4w impose additional;O additional condition? away from it in the a that work sess'i� Have we ever a property v�t 1- he,County's -has not been 'during the The development along the to nt to bd..able to come up IR fill area). _ The erosion flood risk" ;uggested for additional 4n addition to what he we any Code to enforce bank stabilization would bank erosion. They will with a mitigation plan to that occurred in 2009 is presentations as it's been very helpful. ies-T4ibnson may have answered this but she just wants to full LQMR modeling can still be done. The applicant could 'requite it after the annexation. Hilmes-Robinson said it still d he would not recommend the imposition of an additional because there is a provision on the annexation act that if we than it might trigger an election requirement. Eckman said be imposed on the zoning for example but he would stay m aspect of it. Member Hatfield asked between the County and the City planning and zoning rules, which is the most restrictive as far as projected development. Eckman said he's not familiar with the County's. Ex said when she said the County regulations differ from the City she was specifically referring to how they differ with regard to floodplain regulations. Chair Smith said it would be tough to assess. Smith said in general there are differences and if Hatfield is talking about an overall review process; his suspicion is not knowing the County's that there are specific instances when their standards could be deemed more restrictive and other times the City's would be deemed more restrictive. Hilmes-Robinson said part of what Schmidt said was true. She spoke in the context of a slide on the screen - Haws gave some very good examples, one is out of one of the City's handouts related to those LOMR-fill sites including the one with the island with floodplain completely surrounding it. That's their worst case scenario —that is the epitome of what these regulations for LOMR fill are intended to prevent. That is what FEMA was seeing happen and which caused them to say to communities you need to be the ones to figure this out and adopt standards. Hilmes-Robinson said then he had the other example where the fill was sticking out like a peninsula and you're in the main flow path of the water - that would be the next worst case scenario. Then what they have on the slide indicated for demonstration purposes is by far not the worst case scenario; we have the Poudre River-ft-Wing from one point to the other and the dark blue on the map is the floodway. T49t floodway is the deepest and fastest section of the floodplain. That's where you'l a most conveyance of water - where the water is truly flowing through. Then you havee use other areas along the edge that are designated as the flood fringe. Tbdrekeas geriftlly run slower and are not as deep. You can still have a good amo&[ of'tow. She inted where you'd have a portion of land sticking out - the water s-mes around and flows`iere indicated. In the area which Haws called ineffective foaWMB wateW not moving-'�FiT€Ugh there. It's like a little eddy - It's like a pocket of water beta --'he water is -trapped there and spinning around in a circle. You're not going T�ve the main flow going through there so you are in an area where you're not going ��enerally see as much as an increase in flood elevation then by plaeipg: that fill into theme as you would in the direct flow path. Hilmes-Robinson said this isa t5@c�location for#II to have been placed. What were still saying is, though, is it daa_s no - ty Co We can't assess the full impact of what this does as far as healftan�tla�ause a full hydraulic analysis with modeling has not bgUv7d9,ne on that site. Staff caia t tell the Board if this is a fully safe condition or not..�nt ff i an't answerhhat auestGn. Member Schmidt ask6djit thaM a very costlPhing to do the analysis now. Hilmes- Robinson said it is - it M� taLof_er'igineering time. That's when you get into that other pp6ii FEIVFC�the f611I process. Meal##&Schmidt sa-tNft Hilmes=;Robinson said this might be an acceptance type situdfiot w that thingnNive be s'done. In the future is there any effort to work with the Count come to i&eemek on future floodplain issues such as this. Hilmes- Robinson saT ey've bed through it a couple of times. This is one thing where the City and CountM not mach on all of their regulations. In 2007 there was an effort to review the Poudrb4bveLfroodplain Regulations. In that case it was primarily focused on the Mulberry CorrRW and some differences between the City and the County regulations. At that. oint in time the County became more restrictive on some things - this being one of them where they added that two foot of free board requirement for these LOMR-fills. They matched on most but there were a few regulations where they just could not come to terms. The County did not want to adopt what the City had and the City was not willing to give up what we had. One criteria is related to no residential in the floodplain. Hilmes-Robinson said the County has a different way of thinking and processing their applications. They really push their applicants to go through some sort of FEMA process to change the map to not be in the floodplain. In theory what they're saying is we don't allow any development in the floodplain but we allow development on these If this process (LOMR fill) had taken place in the City then they would have put different conditions on their approval. As you talked about at the work session, one of those conditions would have been no residential in the floodplain. It's the difference between the City and the County in what they say is reasonably safe from flooding and what their criteria is going to be. FEMA leaves it up to the communities. The technical bulletin that Haws showed earlier - it's about 25 pages thick but on the 2nd or 3rd page it specifically talks about more restrictive regulations at a state or local level. A community can set higher standards than what the FEMA minimums are and that whole document is a guidance document. FEMA doesn't have the regulations related to that LOMR fill. They put it back on the communities to take up that responsibility. Hilmes-Robinson said the City's regulations are a little bit higW-thaq the County's. The County's are a little bit higher than FEMA's. You could go,.20 different communities; you may have 20 different versions of how the regulations-'aWipen written. Member Carpenter said her question is if we acceptAnn Ration i3 #-s piece of property he=# than we are accepting where the County has tloddplain and wL_not be able to address it again at the PDP (Project Develop,nt Plan)_review. HilmebERobipson said that's her understanding. For that portion, we d be abbe to carry overt condition that the County placed on the LOMR-fill of elev29 Wo feet without having the basement. But that is it - you will be able to put reential on that LOMR fill site along with the other portions of the site thatare not in the 104@@.r flood plain. Member Carpenter asked if in Octobers en the Coio `end City staff agreed to move forward does that mean you were salt -v h wha as happening? Hilmes- Robinson said she was involved in tha5e dit us =She said she doesn't think 'satisfied' is the approRt f �yording for X-4 It's acc6Wnce because again we have what's in Code and as`Flooapft Administration staff we have to follow what's in Code." She said it was th licant's erogative/ridbts to be able to deal with that LOMR-fill in the County. He was i Comsat the time W not subject to anything in the City. He is not in the City even ate siag�erdom'C have any authority to be able to regulate ,. that until itbtFao nneAE Memb&Schmidt said-�art s1%-` os not understand is did you say then if it had been in the aLeven if the RE -Was dot'; reviewed and corrected; the City would not allow residentia&that type offer. Hilmes-Robinson said if they went through the LOMR-fill process wiihn -.the City,Rhey would have put a restriction on the community acknowledgeriffft-letter tit would have said no new residential structures, no new critical facilities, awn won -residential structure that would have been built would have had to have that 2 ff elevation requirement. Hilmes-Robinson said there is a series of about three or four regulations that are adopted in Section 10-80 of City Code to say here is what we do we have if one of these LOMR-fill processes had been brought to them. Member Schmidt said she got the impression through discussions at work session that the City reviews these parcels and it was deemed that this would have been a backflow area so you wouldn't have that kind of rush of water and that's why her impression was the City probably would have allowed residential. She wondered if others got that same impression. Carpenter indicated she also had that impression. I Deputy City Attorney Eckman said he agreed this matter is not addressed in the annexation statute and it is an important issue. He said the annexation statute just calls for a question of whether there's contiguity. He said we do have an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Larimer County where we have agreed to pursue annexation of any property that demonstrates it has the necessary contiguity. Contiguity by itself demonstrates a community of interest under the statute. Eckman said it is true outside of the requirements of the IGA, that the City does not have an obligation to annex everything that is contiguous to it. He said if the property is as undesirable as for us not to want to have it annexed, we can elect no annexation. It is during the development process we'd want to make sure there is a safe and adequate floodplain management plan for the development of the property. Chair Smith asked him to elaborate on "unless there is somng undesirable". He said we're not talking about the quality of real estate. What facgsWmuld make it undesirable for annexation in their purview? Eckman said there waome Stern that the county's process had left such an unsafe condition that it wd d$e undeA le. Smith said he believes the risk is to the landowner—wheth � not the develents that have occurred and the condition of the property uld be, appropriate 7fi3t�he,types of development he may or may not be proposinrhich ffgg Board still ham seen. Member Carpenter asked Eckman if we do annex Meet,are we able to come back at the PDP (Project Development Plan), eview stage a6g-dress this issue. If annexed that doesn't mean we've accepted - e done under tom- ounty's purview. Eckman said he'd like to defer to Marsha Hi son to hWth the answer to that question., Hilmes-Robinson said ave to deah what —Was done in the county because that process has alr jr to lace and tt FEMA approval has already taken place. She referred to a -- ` lette d indicatede key part of the letter is the part that's circled in red —the flog zone.° he said you're-ise to hearing staff talk about the 100 —_. _ year floodplain,_ the 50 & - --ani-0eing outside the floodplain, when FEMA designate— "_.... hav+�ese zones4iich are used for insurance purposes. The zone des�jnatiMOW# hater piece of the property that went through the LOMR fill proce - the part tha s shad » his slide) is that it is in the 500 year floodplain novi aa6fting to FEMA. She said as*tins descri very accurately FEMA puts the responsibility back on the community as sign on that LOMR application. The county has placed the restriction (as pre _�_ y their code) to have the lowest floor elevated two feet above the flood elevation. �e said the standards in the City are different. The catch is what do we do once a property gets annexed into the city. This is where Municipal Code Section 10-20 comes into play. This is what is being used to say how we're going to deal with properties that have floodplain designation. Code reads, "if lands located outside the city limits are included within a flood hazard area, the requirements of this article shall apply to such lands upon annexation and thereafter and any development activities upon such lands after the date of annexation shall comply with this article. Hilmes-Robinson said based on discussions they've had with the City Attorneys office and the information we have from FEMA is that designation is not part of the 100 year flood plain and is therefore is not subject to the City Code regulations. 5 Haws said in conclusion, he would kindly request the Board place conditions in their recommendation to City Council. They feel it is appropriate to continue to allow residential development in that area that was previously processed through Larimer County via LOMR-F (technically by the book it meets City criteria) but they'd like that to be absolutely sure. As it's coming into the city, that area is no longer technically in the floodplain. There are a couple of things the landowner will be doing that theoretically would exceed City code since it's not floodplain. There will be no platted lots in the floodplain. All residential units would be elevated two feet above the floodplain elevation with their lowest floor. Haws said the landowner will agree to do hydraulic r potential along the floodplain boundary and would not filled but would include the floodplain fringe. It was ai previous condition. It is true the landowner desires to b not at any cost or jeopardy to public safety. The landa_w_ offsite stream bank stabilization. Haws indicated an aerial photo with pink rip,rff—pTdJe flow event that caused stream bank failure there repair that to protect some utility lines in that am engineering analysis for stream bajc stabilization. currently in this area with McMurray Wofta City and other consultants. It will loo' management perspective and a velocit&n an effective use of funds_ and landownV efforts with particular f hatever r and the safety of futufS rest , adjacent public at large. Hi. i— id that Xt t be a re and beyond what migft.regd. Haws and thip ea more here. b-assess any erosion to the area that was restore the land to its shere but the intent is %%na to contribute to _April 1999 N04as a high j�,bad to quicklymitigate and was not done with a full re are some other studies Et Vne Floodplain with the `tally from a floodplain int. He said it seems like participate in those greater end benefits this landowner 3,'and the general (trail users, etc.) condition of annexation and above MembV Schmidt saidite do ns submitted the LOMR application form lists it as a s gWU It appears'2 Woa&29treet is one parcel. She's wondering would FIRMA have inteYMed it diffe tly Uthey knew there were going to be a number of residences.ff indicate - would be the same. Member Schmid A^out one of the maps — "you didn't fix that whole right angle thing, just the one lifportion." Haws said correct, it was a general effort. He said you can see it better inAe field. That excavated area was much more discernible on the ground. It was more closely restored to the natural elevations. Also, they were really trying to protect and enhance those areas. The landowner's plan is to cluster away from the river as much as possible. Chair Smith asked about the relevance of the applicant's presentation to the annexation application. He thinks it may be very easy for the Board to delve into matters that are going to be a part of the development review process. He just wants to make sure the Board is focused on the criteria for an annexation. He said he just wants to put it under perspective so that they do not digress to an area that may or may not really matter. 4 that previously had been excavated. It is really not a filling of a natural stream bank; it was an effort to restore the ground to its native state. Haws reviewed some aerial photos that show: the project site, the 100-Year Flood Way, the 100-Year Flood Fringe. He said in addition to the FEMA regulatory floodplains on the property there are also City regulatory floodplain and floodway from West Vine to the river. In viewing the combined floodplains, the property had approximately five homes in the floodway of West Vine and about another six homes including a sanitary sewage lift station/septic tank/leach field all in the flood plain. One aerial with overlays showed the area that was filled in the county and went through the LOMR-F process with FEMA. Another photo enlarged the area. =a Haws said to dispel any notions that this is filling along the sm banks; the edge of the fill is 115 feet to the Poudre river trail. The Poudre chaff tWs and splits so there's 290 feet to the closest braid. It is another 410 feet to theaouterWnel. To the east it is 540 feet. There is still substantial riparian buffers retnaining�Udplain fringe and conveyance. This little man-made back flow a_t& is-teally not a ardy to public safety. Haws said the next slide comes from the City of't� It's a good illustration (albeit in an exaggerated sen3 through LOMR fill and floodplain anChat is why FEI change some of the regulations. He �e of the the LOMR-F process and created a C�O=Jymx MV aclo empowered (or placed some burden) A theme LOMR-Fs and to insure that they were Nnsgow- information in FEMA T_aj-�l Bulletin 1W that foundations and crav k-e f &dations as %ell as a fftToudre River=Quick Guide. what could potentially happen id local communities chose to drat FEMA did was to modify - t form - that basically lairVadministrators to oversee from flooding. He referred to schematics of non -basement cation flood risk table. Haws said through thT cestbe landowner greed that any future residences built on that fill pad wohon'City uldiave a stem wall or crawl space) and the lowest flo__ strubTii"would be elevated above the base flood elevaticf"nd _ort Collins Poudre River freeboard of two feet above based elevsaid `pad that was created was in most cases above minffrndr iq t the adjoinin se flo level elevation submitted to FEMA, accepted; and basicallyrea is no lolger in ffie floodplain. Haws said the datiort"that the landowner agreed to as a condition of the county permit and will c._us�o agree through annexation is either the stem wall or crawl space —those are tfiiWighest levels of risk protection from being reasonably safe from flooding. Even though technically it's no longer in the floodplain, it acknowledges there could be a risk if you were to dig basements. Haws went through the sequencing of events with the County from October 2011 (met with County and City Floodplain Administrators to discuss intentions) to January -March 2012 (applied for and obtained a LOMR-F from FEMA removing area from floodplain). In April 2012 submitted petition for annexation to the City. He reviewed a simplified comparison of County vs. City regulations. The table categorized items into Allowed in County and Allowed in City for: placement of fill material in 100-year flood fringe, LOMR- F to remove area from floodplain, and residential homes to be built on filled area removed from the floodplain. 3 on the subject property should be clustered (see the Framework Plan Map on page 12 of the Plan and Attachment 5 to this document). Thus, based on the guidance provided by the Structure Plan, City Plan, and the Northwest Subarea Plan, it is staffs finding that this property should be zoned U-E. Northwest Subarea Plan calls out that this area should be zoned as "Urban Estate" with residential clustering preferred. Ex highlighted concerns staff has heard. They are: • Would have liked to see Public Open Lands Zoning. Because this parcel is privately owned, that designation isn't available. It does match what the Structure Plan has called for. • Floodplain fill through a LOMR-Fill process was approved. while in the County. It is important to note that the City's regulations differ frq#r he,,County regulations and the areas that are designated as floodplains at dime of annexation are the only areas that are subject to the City's regulations+ Been determined that City regulations apply at t*time exation. Because this area is not regulated by the Land tie, Cpde, F1f5 @; ain Administrator Marsha Hilmes-Robinson and Water Engineeofg Field Operati _ ., Manager Jon Haukaas are available for questions. Staff recommends approval of the annexation -fflaLre, ested zoning of'UE - Urban Estate. Staff is recommending that this properiftE included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map WDendment will be cessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sigk-Db tct Map. _ Member Schmidt asked if the only wajue Zgfftonate Bu-blic Open Lands is if the City owns it. Deputy City Attorney Paul Mckrraen 99k *,Ablic Open Lands District is large publicly owned p open Iands3NtiEh have Wtommunity wide emphasis. Applicant's Preseft lnn =- Nick Haws with NorthenginBeing said he Sed facilitate some of the permits which occurred while the prop€r_yys fAsttlY In response to questions that arose at the ��oth woufc7tke to ci' ome of the history/background whether it's appltion M. They are valid questions in terms of what happened undep?N. Inpular he'd like to dispel any potential concerns to pubfic-�h or safety may tEcur in the future as a result of perhaps different Haws reviewe&td cont -, ted the historic FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Maps) maps from 1979, 1986, 9S6 I996 and 1986 overlaid at the project area, 1996 and 1986 overlaid at the proR rea and LOMAR-F fill area, and 2008. He noted in 1996 what use to be a concaveshape has now bulged out when it was mapped 10 years later. What they've learned from the previous landowner is in between that 10 year period there was some excavation and earth work that occurred there. That man-made change to the topography caused that floodplain to bulge out there. He reviewed 2006 and 2008 — they followed that same shape and it remains the current effective FIRM map for the property. He did an overlay of the 1986 FIRM map with 1996 so the Board could more clearly see the change that occurred after the landowner did that excavation. Finally, the current effective map (2008) with the historic floodplain with an area in red that denotes what was filled under the county purview (with a floodplain development permit and a LOMR-F which was subsequently applied through FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)). Although not exact, it roughly follows the filling in of the area I Planning and Zoning Board May 17, 2012 DRAFT minutes ATTACHMENT 6 Project: Wood Street Annexation and Zoning No. 1 - # ANX120001 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O - Open in the Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E -Employment in the Gy to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and�`POL - Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Parkid McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 1003Qo8&tary annexation. Recommendation: Hearing Testimony, Environmental Planr Growth Manager Fort Collins and Lari Fort Collins Growth property i This DrQ rtv oai Staff recommends approval that the property be place District. Staff is recommending I Residential Neighborhood be necessary It -quid the Plan that this propert;placed on District Map. - the fegi-Uhrnent that no the existiiN bounda nnexa%and recommends UE - U_Estate Zoning perty be inc uded in the A map amendment would Zoning Board recommend dential Neighborhood Sign x said the4.property is located within the Fort Collins kcd-grding to pok-jes. and agreements between the City of in^contained in Intergovernmental Agreement for the _ e.�ty will agree to consider annexation of rope gible for annexation according to State law. 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common da f Phrea (December, 2010) to the north, thus satisfying than DKei-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to The requested wing for Lffs annexation is the UE - Urban Estate Zoning District. There are numerous us�ted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Plann and Zoning Board. The City's Structure Plan Map and Northwest Subarea Plan providt guidance that the subject 17.3443 acres should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E). In the Structure Plan, the subject property is designated as "Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors." As noted in City Plan, "Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors are not intended to be parcel -specific designations, but rather general designations that follow major drainageways and other wildlife and water corridors" (page 96). Thus, the Structure Plan and City Plan suggest development in these areas should emphasize and acknowledge the influence and value of the river in any proposed development. The Northwest Subarea Plan (approved in 2006) outlines that the subject property should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E) and further suggests that residential development