HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRAILHEAD ANNEXATION & ZONING - 43-02 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGTrallhead 1'r(.jc'ct DeiiI `lopIlIcIlt 1'I.111
• I'I I\ 1\ 0 I It ILI,I lid'
• I'lI)%]dr, AIIIII tL411 i 11(�tl,ij]L Oplutrlunitii,
• PI'tt RIGS a l *luldL'MV ('0110' ('Itnr lu 1J11111tt\rlk'116
No Text
Trailhcad ProJect Dcvc1opment Plan
• Nhdcl(•It\ Hall '1)loIccl
• Appli'pi I'll y Im in Ih.• ( olI(c\I ul Ihr
1lutnilain \'i,Ia Plan and the ( 11% in Groctal
NO Sense In "'aitino
• ('uncnik m I.nuho I Ind ltnu.•k .'I
• n.'I�I l halat'_C lip l tR �� \c����UaU��n+ a ills \ I;
U�cr Klnilt .\Iry,li.•.iui Ila, \�, l �nui��I
• \luunl.tm \ i,l:i flan 1% S Naiad; Luc
• \h(tltranl I'Lnin; lit tltc I�ulr.
CO, I'OliclC�
Achiewd by thy' Traillicad I)rulect
• Baklftcc of I lun.in,? and I Illpimntertl
• I..Ilttl I .c I'ancru, f rit,n,
• \li\,d Iand Price ILut,•c.
• .\II111dahlr Iltau. II q, CkIse It l:np,luNnlei t
• ('luklcarr (': nlcr. ('011wilicnl it, I ntl)[4,) tucnl
zoncti LAIN
• \tier Il,e Culloll (►aner Puldla.rll din• Plopol�
Illy I)raenatctl /tuunr aa�('I,:ul:rell It, I.
\ m� Umc t� n., h•nc. i hcuc• .,a,.ul. n,l a� .t hu, h ,,nq:
('I x) I tun nu I,hm, h a ., n, �a rt,t: i, h:uc•..n \ uu I kn:.mal I ��
<l+utuau.,n a r.uli •ml I•M.,,.ill% niq„ "114, d1h, b, r,alr nr,i till, It
• .\It►�rt=lui:uene,.ltI IAIN Ir II)c I-ulu(e 1%(iencraIh AckIll mle(
History ol— ra1111cad Property
Land Use Desilgnatic)n
Im
mm
No Text
Mountain Vista Subarea
/.❖. Mountain 4ista
Framework Plan .. �.
� arm, v � on iw+. i www o.w wrL. wwe.reve
�m�� yu,m �rw.m orr
�xwu+.mue+wa�
� nrrr wm
A
wccua wlm ,e ,mc
taw MrVmA: Otoew tY. tiGa
ti
o ws ,,>m um 6,m aw
ATTACHMENT "B"
STATE OF COLORADO }
)ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his oath states:
That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature therein
is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
irculator's Signature
Subscribed and�worn to before me this �y day of Al cvt-� '': :_• , 2°0" ,
by [ /� it T?,Fv'•.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
1%
Commis , SiO6 Expiration
to ubl•
6) S13°48'13"W, A DISTANCE OF 89.26 FEET;
7) S31°17'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 161.04 FEET;
8) S41°53'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 218.05 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4;
THENCE S00002'44"W, ON SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1105.36 FEET, TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF EAST VINE DRIVE;
THENCE N88057'05"W, ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 2640.83
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN OVERALL CALCULATED AREA OF 90.928 ACRES (3,960,835 SQUARE
FEET).
C.\Documents and Settings\Cathy\Local Settings\Temporary latemet Ftles\OLK23\0403 - ANNEX LEGAL.doc
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRAILHEAD ANNEXATION
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,
RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PM LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE BURLINGTON
NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, LYING WESTERLY OF WATERGLEN
P.U.D., AS RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER 98109875, LARIMER COUNTY
RECORDS; ALL WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF
SECTION 4, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE SOUTH END BY A 2" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "LS 25372, 1996" AND AT THE NORTH END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "LS 17502", IS ASSUMED TO BEAR S00°02'44W", WITH A DISTANCE OF
2600.57 FEET BETWEEN SAID MONUMENTS.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4,
THENCE N00019'44"E, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 4, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST
LINE AND THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF EAST VINE DRIVE AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE N00°19'44"E, CONTINUING ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 737.13 FEET,
TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD;
THENCE N58002'55"E, ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 563.33
FEET;
THENCE S59012'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 220.69 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A DELTA OF
10705 1'57 "AND A RADIUS OF 175.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 329.46 FEET, THE CHORD
OF SAID CURVE BEARING N66051'55"E, WITH A LENGTH OF 282.91 FEET, TO A POINT
OF REVERSE CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A DELTA
OF 45003'53"AND A RADIUS OF 307.94 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 242.20 FEET, THE CHORD
OF SAID CURVE BEARING N35027'53"E, WITH A LENGTH OF 236.01 FEET, TO A POINT
OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N57059'49"E, A DISTANCE OF 1747.66 FEET;
THENCE N34052'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 196.69 TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
WATERGLEN P.U.D.;
THENCE ON SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) COURSES:
1) S 11 ° 12' 11 "E, A DISTANCE OF 94.94 FEET;
2) S16°18'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 71.95 FEET;
3) S21032'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 78.30 FEET;
4) S 16-51'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 499.15 FEET;
5) S05055'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 157.65 FEET;
C:\Documents and Setttngs\CathylLocal SetttngATemporary Internet Files\OLK23\0403 - ANNEX LEGAL.doc
Page 1 of 2
Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area
described on Attachment "A" as more particularly described below:
SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON ATTACHMENT "A"
IN WITNESS WHEROF, I/we have executed this Petition for Annexation this :4-y* day of
C,zA , 2 cDy
Hartshorn Properties LLC,
a Colorado Limited Liability Company
By:,.,
etitioner's/Owner's Signature Petitioner's/Owner's Signature
PO F3ox 37600
Address Address
C-rTeP 8010 3
City IState Zip
City State Zip
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") hereby petition the Council of
the City of Fort Collins, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the Trailhead
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. Said area, consisting of approximately Ninety Point Nine Two
Eight (90.928) acres, is more particularly described on Attachment 'A" attached hereto.
The Petitioners allege:
1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Fort Collins.
2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have been
met.
3. That not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins.
4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
City of Fort Collins.
5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future.
6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated
with the City of Fort Collins.
7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more that fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the
area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public
streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Fort Collins.
8. That the City of Fort Collins shall not be required to assume any obligations 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 proposed to be annexed except
as may be provided by the ordinance of the City of Fort Collins.
Further, as an express condition of annexation, Petitioners consent to the inclusion into the
Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (the "Subdistrict") pursuant to §37-
45-136(3.6) C.R.S., Petitioners acknowledge that, upon inclusion into the Subdistrict, Petitioners'
property will 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 at the time of inclusion of Petitioners' lands. Petitioners
agree to waive any right to an election which may exist pursuant to Article X, §20 of the Colorado
Constitution before the Subdistrict can impose such mill levies and special assessments as it has the
authority to impose. Petitioners also agree to waive, upon inclusion, any right which may exist to a refund
pursuant to Article X, §20 of the Colorado Constitution.
WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Fort Collins approve the
annexation of the area described on Attachment "A." Furthermore, the Petitioners request that said area
be placed in the LJNN Zone District pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins.
(Check box if applicable). The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their
signatures therefrom at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the
vote upon the second reading of the annexation ordinance.
ANNEXATION PLAT
TRAILHEAD ANNEXATION
&MXM
CALCULATED AREA 90920 ACRES
(3.900.835 SQ FT )
II;
II;
II;
II; Y.0 r-YE
II;
II;' �r--
I I ✓ —_
M R[f Y Y Y!. YM [[Y R.O MYI AI IY[1 YYY
�Y�� YYY.pY [Y.YY><YY
IY IY I>• rl�[ �
�a V� ItE �•�• YY� � [I.M
---------------
DVO[ROS SECOND s-�-iEow �r.�Y rar�i w v a � ✓
YwE>t•RON •Ir[ex a[s r.wt•�Y�NN[_
�R^M1CINEEYIMG
YMY
M-YUYNYY Y>Y Y
1 Y 1 r..YY
rlYYrrlrrr a..rlNv♦r_
r..1.I YN.Y.. irYl.Y.la'.. YRY 1M
.vi:�.�r-arwnYrr.r
NYi�.a w�i �.rrv.l.rr
�i�! � � ii � � ter: 'w�i•�i iiir�
ra _Fo
!.r liiir N�lr W Nv
a.N\ri ��JI„mow=1�lNNw
..Y lI�R.YIY\NNr. w.r-ram.
'� r�.rr.NlY�rwY
MYt.Y-u.0
NFy.Y-.Y �N.FYrrlrri
4r-a0••
W ��rVI.YYIY Ia!_.ra.
iFnrvn �v�.ryya.Frlr•"•r Fr
! �r
Secmro>ro
.—!.!'ir mmflw�a. Mi.i
�• .arr rm. rn-v F.c In
rvN�sia -rt-..n m.r NFn! .�
w.!lsa.n�rwrtr r
pN r Na oA.TiliTTr an
YY swF �Ns.NrsN_
�m
iJmaa�astar
+Nrl r...r lNFv rrs wa_r.
rwr.rrr.MYYs.—rrr�._
AMEXTATION PLAT
TRAILHEAD ANNEXATION
am,m N Tie sourm [iT Ole-GIARm OF ARCMW 4.
TOe1M1! 7 MOIITU. IIAl1Ot k TeM OP Tle t0(Tll PMMIClAL MOOMAM
COIFITY OP LAelot, OTATf OP COLORADO
/
wmaN f r — v
aT r.Y.Y1.ow Ylw
WLF
aysru
/ / YWm.N s+N♦
ALLEN LINO. ANO ..... u-,.., �+..
YFIN V F zap-- ---- - MQI1.iE NINEY.Afllil'1 • Y�..��-�
-Fw
/1 -
_ _ = __-- _ -_ -T=—----
- / L1
.•-r nor �..�.^... rr. v
No Text
#43-02 Trailhead
Annexation and Zoning
Type II (LUC)
10/17/02 N
1 inch : 1000 feet
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above -
described property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of June,
A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4,
THENCE N00'19'44"E, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE
INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST LINE AND THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
EAST VINE DRIVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENE N00' 19'44"E, CONTINUING ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF
737.13 FEET, TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST LINE AND THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN
RAILROAD;
THENCE N58°02'55"E, ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A
DISTANCE OF 563.33 FEET;
THENCE S59'12'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 96.60 FEET, TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC Of A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING
A DELTA OF 89'07'16"AND A RADIUS OF 275.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF
427.75 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARING N76' 14' 15"B, WITH A
LENGTH OF 385.91 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N31'40'37"E A DISTANCE OF 57.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING
A DELTA OF 26' 19' 12"AND A RADIUS OF 307.94 FEET, A DISTANCE OF
141.46 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARING N44'50' 13"E, WITH A
LENGTH OF 140.22 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N57'59'49"E, A DISTANCE OF 1747.66 FEET;
THENCE N34°52'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 196.69 TO THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID WATERGLEN P.U.D.;
THENCE ON SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8)
COURSES:
1. S I V 12' 11 "E, A DISTANCE OF 94.94 FEET;
2. S16'18'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 71.95 FEET;
3. S21'32'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 78.30 FEET;
4. S 16'51'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 499.15 FEET;
5. S05'55'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 157.65 FEET;
6. S13'48'13"W, A DISTANCE OF 89.26 FEET;
7. S31-17'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 161.04 FEET;
8. S41-53'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 218.05 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4;
THENCE S00'02'44"W, ON SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1105.36 FEET,
TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF EAST VINE DRIVE;
THENCE N88'57'05"W, ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A
DISTANCE OF 2640.83 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN OVERALL CALCULATED AREA OF 91.285 ACRES
(3,976,373 SQUARE FEET).
ORDINANCE NO. 093, 2004
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 TRAILHEAD ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the
Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the 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 is hereby changed and amended by including
the property known as the Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the
Employment (E) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the County
of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PM LYING
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT
OF WAY TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, LYING WESTERLY OF WATERGLEN
P.U.D., AS RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER 98109875, LARINIER
COUNTY RECORDS; ALL WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LARINIER, STATE OF
COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER
OF SECTION 4, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE SOUTH END BY A 2"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 25372,1996" AND AT THE NORTH END BY
A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 17502", IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
S00002'44W", WITH A DISTANCE OF 2600.57 FEET BETWEEN SAID
MONUMENTS.
Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 3745-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of June,
A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of June, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
THENCE S59'12'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 96.60 FEET, TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC Of A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING
A DELTA OF 89'07' 16"AND A RADIUS OF 275.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF
427.75 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARING N76.14' 15"E, WITH A
LENGTH OF 385.91 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N31'40'37"E A DISTANCE OF 57.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING
A DELTA OF 26' 19' 12"AND A RADIUS OF 307.94 FEET, A DISTANCE OF
141.46 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARING N44'50' 13"E, WITH A
LENGTH OF 140.22 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N57059'49"E, A DISTANCE OF 1747.66 FEET;
THENCE N34'52'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 196.69 TO THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID WATERGLEN P.U.D.;
THENCE ON SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8)
COURSES:
1. S 11.12' 11 "E, A DISTANCE OF 94.94 FEET;
2. SI6'18'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 71.95 FEET;
3. S21'32'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 78.30 FEET;
4. S16051'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 499.15 FEET;
5. S05-55'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 157.65 FEET;
6. S 13'48' 13"W, A DISTANCE OF 89.26 FEET;
7. S31-17'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 161.04 FEET;
8. S41-53'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 218.05 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4;
THENCE S00'02'44W, ON SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1105.36 FEET,
TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF EAST VINE DRIVE;
THENCE N88-57'05"W, ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A
DISTANCE OF 2640.83 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN OVERALL CALCULATED AREA OF 91.285 ACRES
(3,976,373 SQUARE FEET).
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Trailhead Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions
contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for
recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines,
streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as
may be provided by the ordinances of the City.
RESOLUTION 2004-070
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE TRAILHEAD ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of
Fort Collins for property to be known as the Trailhead 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 ofbeing 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
Trailhead 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
1st day of June, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
June 1, 2004 -4- Item No. 26 A-C
bisected the property, to the edge of the property adjacent to the railroad tracks. This new
location has effectively eliminated the possibility of tying into the existing rail lines.
B. TheRMosedglan amendment will Dromote the public welfare andwill be consistent
with the vision, goals, VLnnciples. and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.
One of the key goals of the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan amendment is to maintain a
balance of land available for Employment and residential uses in the northeast part of town
and community -wide. The City is currently in the process of looking at some possible
amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Structure Plan that maypermit shifting
of land uses, while maintaining the current balance of land uses. These amendments affect
several property owners in the area, particularly Anheuser-Busch. There are issues yet to be
resolved in the plan amendment. Staff expects that the subarea plan amendment will be
brought forward within 2004. Until the location of the Employment land can be resolved,
the Structure Plan amendment is not supported by City Plan policies, including ECON-1.3
Infrastructure and Capitol Facilities and ECON-1.4 Jobs/Housing Balance.
Neighborhood Response:
A neighborhood meeting was not held for this application. A formal neighborhood meeting will be
held for the Trailhead project when a Project Development Plan application is filed with the City.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, File #43-02, staff makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions as explained above:
The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary
annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
The requested zoning by the applicant of Low Density Mixed Use Residential (LMN) is
inconsistent with the adopted Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and the City of Fort Collins
Structure Plan.
4. The Employment zoning recommended by staff is consistent with the adopted Mountain
Vista Sub -area Plan and the Structure PIan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning #43-02 with
initial zoning to the Employment (E) Zone District and deny the requested Mountain Vista Subarea
and Structure Plan Amendments.
June 1, 2004 -3- Item No. 26 A-C
amendment. The amended plan relocates Employment uses off of the Trailhead property and
onto adjacent Anheuser-Busch property. The resulting designation on the Trailhead property
is LMN.
The negotiations have been completed for the 30 acres on the northwestern portion of the
Trailhead property. Stormwater would like to acquire the property, since it is a key piece in
the drainage improvements necessary to serve this portion of Mountain Vista. Staff,
however, contends that the purchase will not justify the zoning of the Trailhead property to
LMN, without the further support ofAnheuser-Busch to assume additional Employment uses
lost from the Trailhead property.
FINDINGS and ANALYSIS:
Background:
A. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N:
FAI(County)
S:
LMN
E:
LMN
W:
FAI(County)
2. Structure Plan Amendment
Undeveloped
Proposed Witham Farms CDP
Single Family Residential
Undeveloped
The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, City Plan, may be amended pursuant to Appendix C
of City Plan. All City Plan amendments shall be considered by the City Council, after
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff. Such amendment shall
demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:
A. The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed
amendment.
The existing land use designation for this parcel was assigned during the development of the
Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan. Several factors were present which led to the Employment
designation, which still exist today. The property is directly adjacent to Vine Drive, a four
lane arterial street, with close by access to I-25 via a proposed interchange at I-25 and Vine
Drive. The site also has truck access to two existing interchanges at Mulberry and Mountain
Vista Drives via the existing frontage road system. There are existing and future residential
areas and shopping opportunities to support future employment uses on the property.
Some conditions have changed since adoption of the Plan. For instance, Vine Drive had once
been considered to be a viable "truck bypass" route; that is no longer considered a viable
option. Also, the Burlington Northern Railroad line is directly west of this site. It was
originally thought that the Employment uses could take advantage of this line by adding
spurs off the main line for railcar deliveries. However, since the adoption of the Mountain
Vista Plan, the Larimer and Weld Ditch has been relocated from its previous location, which
June 1, 2004 -2- Item No. 26 A-C
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA).
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County,
contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (last
amended November 2000), the City will pursue the annexation of land into the City of Fort
Collins when such lands are eligible for annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes
(CRS).
2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary
annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This property is eligible for annexation according to the Colorado Annexation Act, which
requires 1/6 contiguity to the existing city limits. The Trailhead Annexation complies with
this standard since the property has 5,116 feet of its total boundary of approximately 9,084
feet is contiguous to the existing city limits. This meets the minimum 1,524 feet required
to achieve 1/6 contiguity. This contiguity occurs through a common boundary with the
property to the north, east, west and south of the parcel.
3. Requested Structure Plan:
The removal of the Employment designation from the Trailhead property would represent
a loss of 90 acres within the City's vacant Employment designated land inventory. A recent
study completed for the Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment concluded that the current
supply of Employment - designated land is adequate; however, any future removal of
Employment lands will begin to create a shortfall in the City's inventory.
With the most recent proposal, the applicant and the City have re-entered into negotiations
for the property north and west of the Trailhead site for use as a regional detention pond.
This concept would relocate a portion of the water ponding on adjacent Anheuser-Busch
property (estimated to be approximately 90 acres) to this adjacent property. Preliminary
grading plans have been completed by the applicant which will determine the capacityof the
new detention pond. With the most recent design, it is estimated that approximately 30 acres
of the 90 acres of area encumbered by floodwater on the adjacent Anheuser-Busch property
would be removed from flooding. The 30 acres would be available for future development.
Anheuser-Busch has expressed potential interest in developing their land in the future with
non-residential uses, such as Employment.
Even with the 30 acres removed from the flooding area, there still remains a net loss of
Employment land of 60 acres with this proposal. Additional improvements could be made
on Anheuser-Busch property to further reduce the ponding area; however, without the
consent of Anheuser-Busch to proceed with such plans, staff can not evaluate what impact
this may have. Staff maintains the position that this loss is too great to justify the zoning of
the Trailhead property to LMN without additional Employment land dedicated elsewhere.
Stone drainage issues on the Anheuser-Busch propertyhave been an obstacle in the adoption
of the staff initiated amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. This purchase of the
property by the City for a regional detention pond could be the catalyst to re-enter into
negotiations with Anheuser-Busch and continue the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
i
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NUMBER: 26 A-C
DATE: June 1, 2004
STAFF: Bob Barkeen
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinances on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2004-070 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Trailhead Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Trailhead
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Trailhead
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The Trailhead Annexation, Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment was presented to the Planning
and Zoning Board on April 15, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of the
Annexation Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading, with initial zoning to the E — Employment
zone district, and subsequent denial ofthe requested amendment to the City of Fort Collins Structure
Plan from the Employment District to Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 91.25 acres of land located along the north side
of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen Subdivision.
The project is located within the Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan. The proposed zoning is LMN —
Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan and the City of Fort
Collins Structure Plan designate this property as E — Employment. An amendment to the Mountain
Vista Sub Area Plan and Structure Plan is accompanying the annexation and zoning request. The
requested plan amendment would designate this property as Low DensityMixed-Use Neighborhood.
The anticipated land use would be single and multi -family residential, consistent with the standards
in the LMN zone district.
The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Apeement for the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
ORDINANCE NO. 092, 2004
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
TRAILHEAD ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2004-051, 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 PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PM LYING
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT
OF WAY TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, LYING WESTERLY OF WATERGLEN
P.U.D., AS RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER 98109875, LARIMER
COUNTY RECORDS; ALL WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER
OF SECTION 4, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE SOUTH END BY A 2"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 25372,1996" AND AT THE NORTH END BY
A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 17502", IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
S00002'44W", WITH A DISTANCE OF 2600.57 FEET BETWEEN SAID
MONUMENTS.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4,
THENCE N00' 19'44'E, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE
INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST LINE AND THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
EAST VINE DRIVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N00' 19'44"E, CONTINUING ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF
737.13 FEET, TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST LINE AND THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN
RAILROAD;
THENCE N58'02'55"E, ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A
DISTANCE OF 563.33 FEET;
ATTACHMENT "C"
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION
Michael A. Maxwell , an attorney licensed to practice in the State of
Colorado, hereby certify that, as of the date of this certificate, the signers of this Annexation Petition for
the area referred to as the Trailhead Annexation to the City of
Fort Collins are the owners of real property in the area proposed for annexation. Furthermore, I certify
that said owners constitute more than 50% of the landowners in the area proposed for annexation, as
said area is described on Attachment "A" of said Annexation Petition, and own more than 50% of the
land in said area, exclusive of streets and alleys. ,.
March 29, 2004
Date
/44Vr! �"", 8755
Signature Attorney Reg. No.
Michael A. Maxwell
Hasler, Fonfara and Maxwell LLP
125 South Howes Street, Sixth Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 493-5070
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 10
Member Carpenter would not be supporting the motion. As she said the last time this
came before them, LMN is a reasonable and good use of this land. She did not have a
problem with the Employment because tonight they just took 156 acres out of
Employment into Public Open Lands on the consent agenda. She thinks that this
citizen has been in the mist of this for a long time and she did not see any reason not to
make this LMN. She would not be supporting the motion for employment.
Chairperson Torgerson would also not support the motion. He concurred with Member
Carpenter and also felt that it was worth noting that this is one of the few opportunities
for affordable housing that we have seen for some time.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Carpenter and Torgerson voting in
the negative.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 9
a stormwater engineer, but he has learned more about it that he cares to know. He
would say that there is a lot of water coming down this drainage and that water has to
be dealt with. The acreage figures that are being thrown around, he did not think that
anyone knows whether those acreage figures are accurate and where they are actually
going to have to put detention ponds in order to fix this problem. Anheuser Busch's
comment on this would be that the cart is being put before the horse. We really need to
figure out where we are going to put all this water and where it is going to go. He did
not think that anyone knows the answer to those acreage figures right now. He did not
think that anyone know that answer whether the water crosses the railroad to the east
side or stays on the west side of the railroad. All those things are still in discussion and
until those are worked out, he did not think they could make assumptions about
detention ponds and where stormwater is going to be placed on any of this property.
Other than that, Anheuser Busch really does not have any objections to zoning requests
by this applicant. They were concerned that the Board make decisions based on
incomplete information about how much stormwater detention will be needed both on
Anheuser Busch's property up in the county and also other properties in the vicinity.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Chairperson Torgerson asked if it would be appropriate to look at the Transition District
for a property like this so an applicant could proceed as a city project, but request a
zoning further down the road when the subarea plan might be finished.
Planner Barkeen replied that the Transition zone could be an option on this property, it
is considered a holding zone until such time, as in this case, an area plan is completed
and then rezoned appropriately. He thought the concern the Board was hearing from
the applicant was that that was just as useless as the Employment or any zoning at all.
Director Gloss responded also that since this application was already initiated and was
going towards first reading of the ordinance at Council, we accepted a development
plan and they paid their fees for the city to start their reviews of the PDP, so that action
is already started. The city will accept an application after the annexation has gone
through an initiating resolution. If an applicant would like to spend the money with no
assurances that an annexation would occur and an annexation does not occur,
obviously we don't take action and they will have spent those fees with nothing to show
for it.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the Trailhead annexation
and zoning, #43-02 with initial zoning to E, Employment zoning district and deny
the request to amend the Mountian Vista Subarea Plan.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 8
also a benefit to her client because he will be taking that dirt and moving it down to the
southern part of the Trailhead project in areas where he needs the fill. Irregardless if it
is a benefit to her client, it is also a benefit to the city. It is just one of those situations
where it is a'wvin win" for both and she thinks that the Board should consider that in
their decision tonight.
Ms. Ripley showed a detailed drawing showing the area of the detention pond that
would be created in order to resolve some of the flooding further to the north. In
summary, conditions have changed since this property was initially designated to be
zoned Employment. More recently, more progress has been made in moving the
Mountain Vista Plan forward and alleviating some of the stormwater concerns. They
would happy to be patient and wait until all the remaining issues in the Mountain Vista
Plan were completed, but months and months go by and there is no indication that it is
going to be rapped up in three months or more. In the meantime there are some real
community benefits that she believes the city could gain by allowing the Trailhead
portion to move forward.
• First the city would gain a project that would provide housing for families at the
affordable end of the market.
• The Trailhead development would benefit that the local economy immediately
versus needing a very long time for an employment use that may never
materialize. It is just not an attractive location now and no one knows how long it
would take before it might be.
• Greenfield Drive would be extended north providing additional access for
Employment zoned properties further north.
• The city gains an opportunity to get a trail easement.
• The city would acquire a regional detention facility at a substantial savings and
move forward with resolving the Anheuser Busch stormwater issues.
For all of those reasons, they were asking the Board once again tonight to consider
recommending to the City Council that this portion of the Trailhead development be
zoned LMN rather than E.
PUBLIC INPUT
Colin Deal, with the law firm of Fadry (?) and Benson in Denver spoke to the Board on
behalf of Anheuser Busch. Mr. Deal stated that they received notice this morning that
this was going to be on the agenda again today and he really did not know what was
going to be proposed until he just listened to it. He stated that their concern was with
the representations that have been made regarding acreages for stormwater. They are
in detailed discussions with the city Stormwater Department right now over how to
design a stormwater system for this drainage. It is a very complicated issue. He is not
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 7
Originally, their reasoning for wanting to change the zoning was because there were
changed conditions in the area. There is no interchange being planned at East Vine
Drive any longer, there is no Vine Drive truck route and there are no railroads for
opportunities at the Trailhead location. All three of these were strong reasons why this
would have been an ideal Employment zoned property, but those conditions no longer
exist. Now it is just a property that has that designation, but perhaps would not if it were
being done today. They thought they had a strong case to move forward with
suggesting rezoning. Staff has been wonderful in working through all the issues with
them. There is a whole litany of reasons why LMN makes sense at this location:
• It is an attractive location because it is adjacent to Waterglen.
• It is an opportunity to build entry level affordable housing. Habitat for Humanity
has built several homes in Waterglen. There are no more for them to build.
They are very anxious for the Trailhead property to move forward so they can
build homes in a new project.
• Waterglen would become less isolated as a community.
• The property to the south of Trailhead is designated LMN already.
• If the property were rezoned to LMN, it would put housing close to employment
opportunities as well as shopping opportunities.
• The housing in this location would support the employment potential that will
exist further north.
• Open space and raw water are there for irrigation of this development, as well as
the green space associated with it.
• Greenfield Drive would be extended north and it is another opportunity to help
that area further north to become more accessible so that employment uses will
become attractive for employers that want to move to Fort Collins.
• It is an opportunity to establish a below grade crossing for the bike trail. That
opportunity may come again, but it is right here on the table now with this
Trailhead development if they can just move forward.
• In the end, this is what everyone agreed, that LMN makes a lot of sense in this
location.
The changed circumstance since they were here last really had to do with the fact that
staff has continued to be gracious enough to work with them to try and move this
forward. They are still not able to have all the issues resolved with Anheuser Busch, but
one of the big issues has to do with storm drainage. The Storm Drainage Department
worked with her client and with her clients efforts and help, did some investigations in
order to determine whether or not utilizing the area to the north as stormwater detention
could help relieve flooding further north, land that is more accessible for employment
uses. That has occurred; not only has the applicant offered to sell this property to the
city at half of its appraised value, but he will also dig the detention pond for the city.
That makes a double savings for the city if this could be allowed to move forward. It is
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 6
detention. It would then free up "x" number of acres of land to be designated as
employment on the Anheuser Busch property for future employment uses. Through the
property purchase negotiations, there has been some drainage plans to determine what
would this affect and how will this work. It is estimated that about 30 acres of detention
would be located on the northern property and about 60 acres would still be located on
the Anheuser Busch property. We are only looking at a net gain of about 30 acres of
future Employment land within Anheuser Busch. Given that, staff is still recommending
that the Trailhead property be annexed into the Employment zone district rather than
the LIMN zone district as proposed by the applicant. The reason behind that is that we
are still at a net loss of Employment land not only within Mountain Vista, but also within
the city as a whole. With this proposal, we are about a 60 acre net loss, whereas before
we were at a 90 acre net loss. We are making up some ground, but we are still not
quite there yet.
Again, staff's proposal is that we continue to work through the amended Mountain Vista
Plan, continue to work with Anheuser Busch to transfer the Employment designation on
the Trailhead site up further north within the land owned by Anheuser Busch, more
compatible with Anheuser Busch and has better access to 1-25, via the Mountain Vista
interchange.
Member Lingle asked about the approval of this on February 19, 2004, would the Board
have to rescind that?
Planner Barkeen replied that technically, this is a brand new application. They have
refilled their annexation petition, map and paid the applicable fee for that. The action
the Board took previously is still out there, but hopefully this will override or supercede
that previous action.
Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates was here tonight representing Vista Ventures, the
applicant on the Trailhead property. She appreciated the opportunity to bring the item
before the Board again to once again clarify information because it is such a complex
issue, specifically what has changed since the last time they were here.
In the way of background, she wanted to reiterate that her client and herself started
working on this project two and a half years ago. She knows that the Planning and
Zoning Board is concerned about time, but they have been very patient in two and a half
years to get the zoning, all the while having a lot of support from the staff, because
eventually, they would like to see this property zoned LMN as well. What they were
talking about was whether they could move forward with that or whether they need to
wait until the Mountain Vista Plan is completed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 5
Project: Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning, #43-02
Project Description: Request for annexation and initial zoning of 88.79
acres located on the north side of Vine Drive, west of
1-25. The requested zone district is LMN, Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Board recommend that City Council a rove the
Trailhead Annexation and Zoning #43-02 with initial
zoning to the Employment (E) Zone District and deny
the requested Mountain Vista Subarea and Structure
Plan Amendments.
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this item has
been before the Board on February 19, 2004 and at that time the Board recommended
approval of the annexation with initial zoning of E, Employment zoning district, which
was contrary to the request by the applicant which was for Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood. Since then the applicant has been meeting with city staff to resolve the
primary issue associated with the LMN zone district on this parcel which is the net loss
of Employment land within not just Mountain Vista, but the city as a whole.
A solution has been proposed by the applicant. The applicant owns a piece of ground
immediately north of the Trailhead Annexation and it is between 40 and 50 acres
depending on how much right-of-way you take out of it. Immediately north of that is
land that is owned by Anheuser Busch. Right now on this property, which through the
staff initiated Mountain Vista Amendment Plan, staff is proposing that the Anheuser
Busch property north of Trailhead be zoned E, Employment. Staff feels that it is
appropriate for that land use designation given the access to 1-25 and also the desires
of Anheuser Busch to not have any non-residential uses within their property
immediately adjacent to their brewery operations.
Right now, this property is encumbered by flooding that occurs on the property during a
significant event. During a 100-year storm event, it is estimated that about 90 acres of
this land is inundated with floodwater. What the applicant is proposing, and has been
working with our Stormwater Department is to purchase the majority of the northern
piece of the Trailhead property and convert that to a regional storm drainage detention
pond. The theory behind that is that we now use 40 to 50 acres of the north property for
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Dewald replied that normally you would not have the groupings of units in the
fashion that they are in. They were rearranged specifically to meet the projection
requirement for the fagade they were referring to. Another thing that has been added is
that as part of the efis it is a pattern efis design which again plays with the texture of the
overall exterior. That is also non-standard to the franchise. Those two items were done
specifically to meet the standards for this particular structure
Chairperson Torgerson asked how the regrouping of the suites express itself in the
exterior fagade of the building.
Mr. Dewald referred to a slide that shows the different groupings of the suites and the
rooms that have been provided. The number and the selection were chosen as a result
of a feasibility study representing the market in Fort Collins. How they are grouped and
where they are placed was specifically done to try and provide relief in the detail.
Member Lingle asked about staff comment 63, which states "the 50% rule for features
such as windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, awnings, trellises with vines details as
not being represented." He asked if that has been satisfied now, so that those kinds of
elements we see in the proposal can be gauged against the two or more options.
Planner Olt pointed out on the site plan, the upper imaged showed the front of the
building that is broken up into five different panels. He pointed out the elements that did
not exist with the previous plan. Based on comments, which has enabled staff to make
the recommendation that they are meeting the requirements of the Land Use Code.
That comment has been met and satisfied.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 3
part of that. It should be noted that specifically from the view of Harmony, the existing
trees that are there, are very mature healthy trees that provide that human scale. As
also indicated the existence of the wall and the concrete and brick on the northeast
corner also amplifies that. They felt that they have provided the intent. Likewise, the
architectural standard that they have put forth has nothing to do with corporate image, it
is more in keeping with the philosophies of the architecture that they present. To add
additional projection and detail to the outside of the building, specifically the sides they
are referring to, they don't think it enhances the architecture, but in fact takes away from
it. They have provided a brick band around the bottom to anchor the structure and
visually shorten the building. They investigated in the front and the ends and have
brought vertical element and brick all the way to the top to enhance the entrance area or
to break the fagade again. Their concern is that if they add more vertical element to it,
in the form of projections or relief of some form, what it will do is the opposite of what
the standards are trying to do.
Member Lingle asked about a memo included in the Board's packet in which the
applicant spells out their rationale for requesting the modification. In the second and
third paragraphs, they reference a comment 63 and a comment 96 which came from the
staff report that questioned the compliance of the design with those standards. Has the
design they are showing tonight been modified in anyway to address the modification
request where it looks like staff was not supportive of it meeting the requirements of the
Land Use Code in the case of those two comments. In the revised staff report, it looks
like it has been but with no changes.
Planner Olt replied that those were comments from the last staff review. It is staff's
opinion that with their latest submittal, does in fact address those comments. Those are
not comments from the staff report but rather staff review several weeks back prior to
the latest round of submittals from the applicant.
Member Lingle asked to be walked through what changed between that staff review and
the current proposal.
Mr. Dewald replied that he was not sure he could. His staff made the changes. He
believes that the brick was added in between. They did work diligently with the
franchise to do a combination of where the number of suites and where they were to
meet both the needs of the feasibility study and the needs of the franchise. The rest of
the structure really meets the function of the building. What specifically has changed in
between, he could not directly answer that question.
Chairperson Torgerson asked in what ways does the design as presented deviate from
the standard prototypical design that corporate would suggest.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 2
corner of East Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive.
The existing Comfort Suites Hotel is to the south and
the existing IHOP Restaurant is to the east. The
property is in the HC, Harmony Corridor Zoning
District.
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Lingle pulled this item. He was disappointed that the Board did not receive the
staff review of the modification request until 20 minutes before the meeting. He did not
think the Board has had an adequate amount of time to review the request.
Planner Olt responded that the modification request is for the north elevation of the
Holiday Inn Express Hotel. It would be the building elevation facing East Harmony
Road. We are looking at an expanse of the building of about 180 feet, therefore the
panels of the building exceed the thirty feet without significant articulation as defined in
the Land Use Code to break up that expanse and mass of that building elevation and
bring it down to human scale. Planner Olt explained that he received the modification
request just prior to worksession and was unable to respond at that time.
Planner Olt read from page 9 of the revised staff report:
'The north facade of the buiding contains, essentially, three separate wall planes (bays)
that range in length from 51' to 75'. There is a 3' to 8' horizontal separation between the
center bay (51' long) and the two end bays (62' and 75'). The center bay, which
projects 3' out (on levels 2 — 4) and 8' out (on the ground floor) from the end bays,
incorporates a gable at the top of the wall panel and brick columns at the corners that
vertically project to the roof eaves, replicating these architectural details on the front and
ends of the building. On all 3 bays there are windows that comprise 50% of the fagade;
and, a change in texture of building material and color between the ground floor and the
upper 3 floors. These elements, in combination with the extensive landscaping along
the north side of the building and the existing masonry sign wall at the northwest corner,
divide the walls into human scale proportions. Staff is supportive of the applicant's
request for a modification of the standard set forth in Section 3.5.3(1))(2)(a)1 of the Land
Use Code."
Steve Dewald, from Lightowler Johnson Associations representing the applicant Jeff
Lamont spoke to the Board. He stated that their intent was not to "skirt' the issue of any
kind of standards or ordinances. Their true belief and feeling architecturally, they have
met the intent of the ordinance by way of the significant amount of windows that are
displayed and by the use of two different types of textures. Also, as Mr. Olt had
indicated, the significant amount of landscaping materials that they have provided as
rM
ncil Liaison: Karen Weitkunat
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson
Vice Chair: Judy Meyer
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Phone: (W) 490-2172
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Schmidt, Craig, Meyer, Gavaldon, Lingle and Torgerson.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Stringer, Smith and Delnes.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the December 19, 2002, February 19, (Continued) and
March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. #13-82CROakridge Business Park, 36"' Filing, Holiday Inn Express — Project
Development Plan.
3. #4-04 Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning.
Discussion Agenda:
4. #43-02 Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning.
5. #7-04 Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street — Modification of Standards.
6. Recommendation to City Council — Floodplain Regulations.
Member Lingle pulled Item 2, Oakridge Business Park for discussion.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the consent agenda for Item 1, less the
February 19, 2004 minutes and Item 3.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Oakridge Business Park 36"' Filing, Holiday Inn
Express, Project Development Plan, #13-82CR
Project Description: Request for a four-story 89-unit hotel on 2.167 acres.
The total square footage of the building will be
51,808. The property is located at the southeast
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 34
Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would not support the motion and stated
agreement with Member Carpenter. He added that there are changed conditions
on the site and staff is stating the LMN does make sense, though they are
concerned about the land balance. The Code criteria for approving or denying
this do not include anything about AB developing the property.
The motion was approved 4-3 with Members Carpenter, Meyer, and
Torgerson voting in the negative.
Project:
Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03
Project Description: Request to annex and zone 2.18 acres
located at the southeast corner of West
Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The
property is north of Laporte Avenue,
west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of
North Overland Trail. It is currently
being used as an existing single family
residence (with house and barn) and is
in the FA Farming Zoning District in
Larimer County. The requested zoning
in the City of Fort Collins is LMN, Low
Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Chairperson Torgerson excused himself because of a conflict of interest and
turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Meyer.
City Planner Steve Oft gave the staff presentation stating that staff was
recommending approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the
LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. He stated that the
property is eligible for annexation by virtue of the Irish Second Annexation along
West Vine Drive, which was a flag pole annexation that was done several years
ago to enable the city to annex Irish Elementary. Planner Oft displayed the
zoning map and pointed out the properties in yellow around the Adrian property
that are in the city and are in the LMN zoning district and also what was still in
Larimer County. Planner Olt displayed the Structure Plan map that was adopted
by the city in 1997 and stated that the property to be discussed tonight is
designated as Low Density, Mixed Use Residential. The requested zoning that
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 33
Member Craig stated that she was not comfortable in believing that AB would sell
the employment land.
Member Carpenter stated that that is a completely separate problem and that the
applicant has really been caught up in something outside their control with these
issues. These things have nothing to do with the applicant's request.
Member Meyer stated agreement with Member Craig but asked what would
happen to the employment land when the storm drainage had to go there.
Member Gavaldon asked what the staff recommendation was based on.
Planner Barkeen replied that it was based on the current Mountain Vista Plan. He
stated that he did not see any change in conditions that would warrant the
rezoning.
Ms. Corman wanted to remind the Board that the land swap proposed by the
applicant is equitable and would provide a buffer to the residential area and
railroad access to the employment area. Immediate City and economic benefits
are being lost with this development not starting.
Member Gavaldon moved for the Planning and Zoning Board to
recommend approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, #43-02, with
initial zoning to E — Employment, and denial of the amendments to the
Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan and Structure Plan, citing the findings of fact
and conclusions in the staff report.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter stated that she would not support the motion and believed
that the potential land swap was fair.
Member Schmidt stated that the trade, acreage -wise, might be close to fair, but if
AB decides not to do anything with that property, it is a landlocked piece of
employment because it has no access. If it comes together in a whole package
with AB, it would be a good situation. However, as a piecemeal thing, it does not
seem to solve the problem. Most of the reasons this would be a good LMN piece
would also apply to an employment zone.
Member Lingle stated that, in addition to preserving the City's inventory of
Employment land, it also protects the Sub -Area Plan and its concepts with the
residential being adjacent to the community commercial area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 32
regional detention. The discussions are on -going as to whether or not that will
work. The new Mountain Vista Plan has not been finalized.
Member Carpenter asked if the revised Mountain Vista Plan would show this
property as LMN.
Planner Wray replied that that is what is shown on the plan to date and stated
that staff does understand the applicant's reasons for wanting this to be LMN.
However, prior to this development proposal, staff was comfortable with the
Mountain Vista Plan as it was. Mr. Wray added that staff is concerned about the
potential loss of Employment land in the northeast part of town.
Member Lingle asked if staff would support a requested rezoning to LMN of this
piece if all the other issues were worked out.
Planner Wray replied that they would.
Member Craig stated concern about having a single land owner for the entire
piece.
Planner Wray replied that there are a little over 1,000 acres of buildable
employment land within the GMA. Anheuser Busch makes up about 47% of that
inventory. AB is primarily concerned with residential compatibility with the
industrial brewery operations.
Member Craig asked if AB would be willing, in the 10 or 15 year time frame, to
sell some of their land for employment uses rather than hold on to it for a buffer.
Planner Wray did not want to speak on behalf of AB but stated that he thought
they would be willing to consider selling some of the land to uses that would
support their existing operations.
Ms. Toll, attorney for AB, stated that AB does not oppose the ultimate rezoning of
its property; they would just like to see the stormwater issues resolved prior to
the rezoning. She stated that AB is working with staff to get those issues
resolved.
Member Craig stated that her concern was whether or not AB was willing to
market the land.
Ms. Toll replied that she did not have an answer for that.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 31
employment, beyond the bypass. Additionally, the Master Street Plan does show
an interchange at Vine and 1-25.
Member Carpenter stated that the land trade mentioned by Ms. Ripley seems to
be fair and it makes more sense to have the employment located by other
employment and have this property in with the housing near Waterglen.
Member Craig stated that the difference between putting the employment on the
north side of the railroad track versus the south side is that when the Mountain
Vista Plan was done, LMN was put on the north side of the railroad track so that
it would work as a buffer in a neighborhood around the community commercial.
Getting an at -grade crossing at a railroad is very difficult. The thought was to put
employment down at Vine where you can get the connection to College and you
can the connection into the neighborhoods to the south. Moving it over to the
other side of the railroad tracks would make access more difficult.
Ms. Ripley stated that the current Mountain Vista proposed plan shows this area
as LMN. Making it LMN now, ahead of the plan being done, does not
compromise that plan in any way. This site would not develop as Employment
any sooner than any of the AB land would.
Member Gavaldon stated that this site should stay E because of the railroad
crossing and the associated danger.
Member Carpenter stated that they are re -doing the Mountain Vista Plan to zone
this property LMN.
Pete Wray, Advance Planner, stated that staff does not want the property
rezoned to LMN for a few reasons. The property was zoned E because it had
access to an arterial, the Master Street Plan showed an interchange with
frontage road access, the potential truck route, and other reasons. Though it is
true that certain conditions have changed, the market could change to support
employment here at any time. A change of zoning cannot be supported until we
see how it all fits in with the rest of the picture in the revised Mountain Vista Plan.
Staff is optimistic that the stormwater issues can be dealt with.
Member Lingle asked Planner Wray to address staffs position on the possible
proposed land swap.
Planner Wray stated that the applicant was the first person to propose this idea
and look at the property currently zoned LMN as a possible location for the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 30
Chairperson Torgerson stated that if the Board were to look at the applicable
criteria for zoning and annexation, he would support approval of the project.
Attorney Eckman stated that the Board should decide, based on the language of
the Code, found in Division 2.9. It states that "any amendment to the zoning map
involving the zoning of less than 640 acres of land shall be recommended for
approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the Council only if
the proposed amendment is:
a) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or;
b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhoods
surrounding and including the subject property.
The Comprehensive Plan, as it stands now, would recommend E — Employment
but the zoning change could be supported if the Board found evidence to support
"b" above.
Member Schmidt noted that there was no comparison made between the
economic benefits of this site being employment versus residential. Based only
on construction, the benefits would apply to both situations, though the time
scenario may be shorter with residential uses. She stated that she was not sure
she felt comfortable declaring a change in conditions to rezone this piece.
Member Craig asked Chairperson Torgerson to clarify his statement about the
change in conditions in the area.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that the truck bypass probably warranted an
employment site here and a truck bypass is now not feasible due to an
amendment passed by voters. The site has changed also because of the
possibility of the interchange not happening. It seems that access would be very
difficult for employers.
Member Schmidt noted that Mr. Crumb was just describing how easy it would be
for residents to get to the employment areas.
Member Craig stated that it would be nice to have employment near Waterglen
rather than having those residents worry about how they are going to get to
employment. She stated that her biggest concern with the job -housing balance is
that when the analyses are put together, they use the Anheuser Busch
employment land as part of the equation and we don't know when or if that land
is going to be used for employment. We cannot use this land in the calculations
for available employment land. There were several reasons for making this land
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 29
were three reasons for designating the parcel as Employment on the Structure
Plan. First, CDOT had originally indicated that there would be an interchange at
Vine and 1-25 and they are now stating that they do not know when or ever it will
occur. In addition, Vine Drive was originally projected to be a truck route and that
is no longer a viable option in this community. The third reason is that the
property is bisected by a railroad track. Initially, it was thought that the railroad
could be accessed with a spur but it seems that was probably never possible and
is definitely not possible now because of the irrigation canal that runs parallel to
the railroad track. The canal does provide a nice buffer to a residential use. Ms.
Ripley noted that this site is almost completely surrounded by LMN properties
and is really an isolated Employment zone. Ms. Ripley stated that in order to help
resolve the issue of E-zoned land remaining in balance, her client is willing to
make a land trade to change the zoning to E of a 67-acre piece of land that is
currently zoned LMN, if the Trailhead property could be zoned LMN. This would
make the net loss of E zone about 23 acres.
Ken Crumb, applicant and owner, gave his testimony to the Board. He noted that
the City has cited economic reasons for not wanting this property to be zoned
LMN. He stated that his proposed project will provide significant employment
opportunities during the time it is being built. He introduced Rhonda Corman, of
UNC, to make a statement regarding the economic impact of this project.
Ms. Corman stated that she did an economic impact analysis on this property,
with use as a residential project. She found that the construction phase benefits
would outweigh costs and stated that it makes sense, in the immediate run, to
capture these revenues. The induced and secondary effects get even larger in
the 10-year outlook.
Mr. Crumb stated that this site is located minutes from the main employment
centers of Fort Collins and is very conveniently located in terms of travel to
workplace. In addition, a child-care facility has also been planned for the site.
Public Input
Jessica Toll, with the Fagre & Benson (?) law firm, 1700 Lincoln Street, Denver,
80203, gave her testimony to the Board, on behalf of Anheuser-Busch. She
stated only that AB did not want zoning to change on any of its property.
Public Input Closed
Member Gavaldon asked if the item should be continued for further staff
information.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 28
Project: Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, Mountain
Vista Plan Amendment and Structure Plan
Amendment, File #43-02
Project Description: Request to annex and zone approximately
91.25 acres of land located along the north
side of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington
Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen
Subdivision. The project is located within the
Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan. The proposed
zoning is LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood. Both the Mountain Vista Sub -
Area Plan and the Structure Plan designate
this property as E — Employment, and this is
the zoning designation recommended by staff.
Amendments to the Mountain Vista Plan and
Structure Plan accompany the annexation and
zoning request.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Trailhead Annexation and
Zoning, File #43-02 with initial zoning to the E
— Employment Zone District and denial the
requested Mountain Vista Sub -Area and
Structure Plan Amendments.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Bob Barkeen, City Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval
of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning with initial zoning to the E — Employment
Zone District and denial of the requested Mountain Vista Sub -Area and Structure
Plan Amendments. He noted that the property gained its contiguity from the
adjacent Waterglen Subdivision and also from land to the south of Vine Drive.
This parcel is zoned for Employment uses on both the Structure Plan and
Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan. Planner Barkeen noted that not zoning this
property as E — Employment would result in a net loss of just over 90 acres of
Employment -designated land in the City.
Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, gave the applicant's presentation, on behalf
of Ken Crumb with Vista Ventures. She noted that Mr. Crumb also developed
Waterglen and the hope is that the development of this piece of property will
prevent Waterglen from becoming an isolated residential area. It seemed there
Habitat for
ImrHumanity
Fort Collins
4001 South Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, CO 80537
Phone: 970-223-4522, Fax: 970-223-4524
E-Mall: cmayoi9/ortcollinshabda o g
Dec. 4, 2003
Mr. Cameron Gloss
Current Planning
P.O. Box 580
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Gloss,
I have just heard that Ken Crumb is making an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission this
evening for his proposed Trailhead Annexation. As you know, Fort Collins Habitat purchased lots in his
Waterglen subdivision. Ken has been a great support to Habitat in his Waterglen subdivision when
many developers may not have "welcomed" us as he did. As a result, we have built 10 homes in
Waterglen, and Habitat homeowners have been warmly received by neighbors.
Ken has told us that he hopes this new development will be similar to Waterglen in affordability. We
support this development especially if there will be affordable lots that we can possibly purchase in the
future. As you know, there are precious few lots in entry level communities, and, as you know, Habitat
can only build its simple, decent affordable homes in starter home communities. We hope the lots in the
new development will be affordable so that we can once again purchase Habitat lots from Ken.
Sincerely,
Candace Mayo
Executive Director
• The City gains a project that provides housing for families at the
affordable end of the market.
• The Trailhead PDP benefits the local economy immediately versus
waiting a long time for an employment use that may never materialize.
• Greenfields Drive will be extended north from Vine Drive providing
additional access for E-zoned properties further north.
• The City gains an opportunity to obtain easements for trail extensions.
• The City will acquire a regional detention facility at a substantial savings
and move forward with resolving Anheuser Busch storm water issues.
We are asking the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of the
Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, as well as the proposed Amendment to the City's
Structure Plan.
Sincerely,
VF RIPLEY ASSOCIATES
6 vdlz; 'q k, I
Linda Ripley
Principal
resolved before the change can be made in the Plan. The other issues include storm
drainage and the location of a community park. We do not know how long it may
take to resolve these issues.
This was the status on February 19, 2004, when the Planning and Zoning Board made
a recommendation for denial of the applicant's request for LMN zoning.
Changed Circumstances
Since our P&Z Hearing in February, the City staff and the applicant have continued
to work together to resolve issues so that the Trailhead project can move forward.
More than two years has gone by since the applicant first entered into this process
with the City.
The applicant owns 65.54 acres of land north of the canal. The applicant and the City
have investigated using some of the land as a regional storm water facility. It has
been determined that constructing a 35.7-acre detention pond on the applicant's
property will be beneficial to the City and help resolve storm water issues with AB.
An additional benefit is that by constructing the storm water detention facility on this
property approximately 27 acres of land owned by AB will no longer be flooded. As
a result, land that is designated E-Employment and with good access potential to I-25
becomes available for development.
In order to assist the City in getting the issues with AB resolved, the applicant is
selling the City the proposed storm water site at one-half the appraised value. In
addition, he will grade the detention facility and haul away the excess dirt thereby
creating another substantial savings for the City. The applicant can use the dirt on his
property to the south resulting in a positive solution for both the City and the
applicant.
In Summary
Conditions have changed in the Mountain Vista Plan area justifying a zoning
designation change and since February, further progress has been made in resolving
Mountain Vista Plan land use and storm water concerns.
The City's criteria for changing a zoning designation are met. The proposed LMN
zoning is: 1) compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area and is the
appropriate zoning for the land; 2) the proposed zoning would not result in any
adverse impacts on the natural environment; and 3) the proposed zoning would result
in a logical and orderly development pattern.
The applicant has been working with City staff regarding the proposed development
of the Trailhead property for approximately three years. We believe it is in the
City's best interest to allow the Trailhead PDP to move forward. Significant
community, benefits can result from the zoning change and development of the
Trailhead PDP include the following:
However, the new ditch location creates a significant buffer from the tracks
making land to the south more appropriate for residential.
The applicant has requested that the City consider LMN-zoning for the following
reasons:
1 Waterglen to the east of this land is fully developed. Despite the controversy over
the projects location in the beginning, it has proven to be a successful project out
selling other residential developments 2:1. Proving that the consumer finds this
area to be an attractive residential location.
2 The success of Waterglen and the continuing demand for entry level affordable
housing is the reason my client wants to begin the development of Trailhead as
soon as possible. Habitat for Humanity has built seven houses at Waterglen in the
last 2-3 years. They are anxious to continue this positive relationship with the
developer and eagerly anticipate development of the Trailhead project.
3 The development of Trailhead will enhance Waterglen as a community, offering
more diversity in the neighborhood. It would no longer be an isolated residential
area adjacent to the Interstate. It would be a part of a larger residential
community that includes trails, greenbelts, a park and a daycare center.
4 The property to the south is designated LMN.
5 The site is Iocated close to employment, and shopping opportunities. The Poudre
School District has two proposed school locations in the vicinity. The site is
situated high above the neighboring properties, providing a good view of the
Front Range. In addition, there is significant open space and mature vegetation
on the property, providing ample open space for residents to enjoy. As with
Waterglen, on -site well water is available for lawn irrigation and management of
open space.
6 With the development of the Trailhead community, Greenfields Drive will extend
through this property encouraging further development to the north, which has
been a long-term goal of the City.
7 The Trailhead PDP will provide the City with the opportunity to establish a below
grade crossing at Vine Drive for the regional bike trail that is planned along the
Cooper Slough.
8 The applicant is willing to accept an E zoning designation on approximately 65
acres of land he owns north of the Trailhead annexation, resulting in a net loss of
approximately 25 acres of E-zoned land.
Staff has agreed that LMN is an appropriate zoning designation but does not want to
recommend the change until the Mountain Vista Plan is amended. The current
proposed Mountain Vista Plan indicates the property as LMN.
The difficulty for City staff is maintaining a balance of E-Zoned land in the City.
Their support for zoning Trailhead LMN is hinged on Anheuser Busch (AB)
accepting a change to zoning designations on their property. Essentially switching
some property currently zoned LMN to an E designation. Our understanding is that
AB does not object to the change, however, they have other issues that need to be
\/1=Ripley ..6 IATES ING
lanosoape ArGhllOCture Urban Design Planning
March 30, 2004
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
C/O Mr. Cameron Gloss
Director of Planning
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Trailhead Annexation, Zoning &
Structure Plan Amendment
Dear Planning and Zoning Board:
The Planning and Zoning Board originally heard the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning
request on February 19, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial for
a request to change the designated zoning from E to LMN. The applicant is now
requesting a new public hearing on the zoning request because of changed circumstances.
The following background information is presented for your review followed by an
explanation of what has changed since February.
Background
The request is for changing the zoning designation of the 90-acre Trailhead property from
E-Employment to LMN-Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Conditions have
changed in the area since the E-zoning designation was originally made.
1 It was anticipated that CDOT would build an interchange at East Vine Drive and
I-25. In discussing this with CDOT, an interchange at this location is not even on
the 20-year horizon. Documentation of the interchange status in a letter from
CDOT was given to the staff.
2 It was assumed that Vine Drive would become a truck route. Since being turned
down by voters, this is no longer considered a viable option.
3 It was assumed that businesses in the E-zone would have an option to connect to
the railroad located to the north of this property. Today an irrigation canal runs
parallel with the track effectively removing any railroad spur opportunities.
Phone 970 224 582E Fax 970 224 1862
401 West Mountain Ave. Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2806
vinpley corn
(hllcr (,c1111IlltIIIlIV fielleI•its
• 1 Ilan 1\.ICII1.
• I \I011,14al111 III II:LIIUtllll� l( CCIIIIVIkI.I
• ( 1ialloll ul Opol sll:rcr