Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTATE HIGHWAY 14, EAST FRONTAGE ROAD - ANNEXATION & ZONING (RESUBMITTAL) - 20-00 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGITEM ACTION ITEMS NEEDING INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 31. Items Relating to the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 2003-023 Setting Fort Findings of Adopted 7-0 Fact and Determinations Regarding the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2003, Adopted as Amended 7-0 Annexing Property Known as the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2003, Adopted 7-0 Amending the Zoning District Map ofthe Cityof Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation. 32. Items Relating to the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 2003-024 Amending the City's Failed 34 (Nays: Structure Plan Map. Councihnembers Roy, Hamrick, Bertschy and Tharp) B. Resolution 2003-025 Setting Forth Findings of No Action Taken Fact and Determinations Regarding the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2003, Annexing Property Known as the State No Action Taken Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2003, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the No Action Taken Property Included in the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. CITY COUNCIL VOTING RESULTS February 18, 2003 City of Fort Coll'uis ITEM ACTION 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Separately Codifying "The Fort Collins Traffic Code'; Repealing All Conflicting Ordinances; and Making Certain Related Amendments to Chapter 28 of the City Code. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Designating the J. W. Spencer House and Garage,1007 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Designating the Wiggins House and Garage, 1009 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Designating the Temple House, 817 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Designating the Ruth A. Jones House, 120 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Designating the Montgomery House and Garage, 505 Smith Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2003, Adopted on Consent 7-0 Designating the William and Clara Blair House and Garage, 716 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. t pattern in order to avoid sprawling development' (p.80). City policy has been to allow urban density development close to the edges of the GMA boundaries. In fact, the year 2000 approval by the city of Provincetown Filing 2 in the LMN zoning district adjoining a south portion of the GMA led to two lawsuits against the city, where the city had to defend its approvals and eventually won. Additionally, an Urban Estate zoning district with a density substantially less than LMN would underutilize the dwindling reserve of undeveloped properties currently within the GMA. It would be particularly inappropriate for this property considering both its adjacency to major employment, industrial and retail land uses, plus the importance of making efficient utilization of existing utility and roadway infrastructure. As a practical matter, this is obviously not the location for a large lot subdivision, given the Interstate and adjoining land uses, including an abutting manufactured housing project, the Sunflower Subdivision. Furthermore, the Urban Estate District would eliminate any possibility for affordable housing which City Plan strives to make available throughout the GMA. Proximity to the 1-25 corridor is the linking element between this property and the various destinations throughout the City. The property is only a 10 minute drive to the Downtown, and most locations can be reached more efficiently and with reduced vehicle -miles -traveled by utilizing 1-25 rather than congested north -south arterial streets west of 1-25. In summary, the annexation and LMN zoning District with designated open lands for this property are consistent with the existing plans and policies of the city as indicated in the Structure Plan Map to City Plan and the adopted 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan. Furthermore, these land uses and the resulting balance between conservation and development is consistent with the final draft of the 1-25 Subarea Plan. Prepared by Les Kaplan for the Applicant 5 C.R. 52 and the Harmony Rd. intersection, which includes this property, shall be part of an 1-25 Special Study Corridor. This regional planning effort was initiated by Fort Collins, involved over two years, 12 jurisdictions, cost the city $172,000 in consultant fees and probably at least that amount in staff. This plan provides transportation and design guideline refinements to the Structure Plan and, more important to this application, reaffirms the urban character for the W/2 of the section east of 1-25 between Prospect and Highway 14. The preferred vision in the Plan is one of employment and industrial uses concentrated at the intersection, and not as a continuous corridor as represented on the Structure Plan. with the potential for residential and open lands in between. The two commercial intersections are elevated to major "activity centers". The 1-25 Corridor Plan's vision provides guidance on the locating of residential uses adjoining these activity centers. This is certainly a refinement in policy and consistent with changing the structure plan from the current employment land use to LMN as proposed. The Plan also encourages the conservation of open lands, mentioning voluntary means as part of a successful program. An opportunity for such voluntary means to achieve open lands is now before you. Therefore, this application is completely consistent with the City - adopted 1-25 Corridor Plan. The next level of planning along 1-25 was intended to be the 1-25 Subarea Plan, for which the 1-25 Corridor Plan would, and I quote from the Plan, "provide a basis for each jurisdiction's decisions within the Corridor." The completed final draft, having been in the works for 31/2 years has provided that basis and shows an open lands frontage and LMN zoning that matches the application before you. This marriage between conservation and development can be achieved through the voluntarily cooperation of the applicant and your adherence to adopted and completed city plans and policies. This application clearly articulates the vision for this property set forth in the final draft of the 1-25 Subarea Plan. The concept of density "feathering" east of 1-25 will likely be raised by Council. Any "feathering" of density within this W/2 of the section is not only contrary to the Structure Plan, the 1-25 Corrider Plan and the final draft of the Subarea Plan, but is simply not achievable. With the exception of this 47 acres, 100% of the properties in this W/2 are either developed commercially or at urban densities or are zoned in the City as part of a commercial/industrial/residential center. A more feasible location for this "feathering", were there a sound planning basis for it, would be the E/2 of the section closer to the existing GMA boundary and where a lower density residential character is partially in place. However, the existing policy basis for such "feathering" is questionable. Regarding urban/rural edges, City Plan says this: "In keeping with our City Plan vision, our edges will be visually prominent, promoting a compact land use 4 Fourth, the development shall provide adequate storm drainage facilities. There is a storm existing storm drainage channel, installed in conjunction with the Clydesdale Subdivision, that runs in an easement through the property. And finally, because this property adjoins three existing developments to the north (Interchange Business Park, Sunflower, and Clydsdale), there is adequate fire, emergency services, electrical and gas services. The applicant is requesting LMN zoning for this 47 ac. property and offering to voluntarily set aside as open lands at no cost to the public approximately 10 ac. along the frontage road. The currently county zoning is commercial for the frontage, where open lands are being offered and FA-1 for the balance. Please do not be confused by the current FA-1 zoning, which in the GMA is simply a holding zone preceding rezoning by the county or annexation by the city. As a case in point, the property north and east of this where the Clydesdale Subdivision has developed was rezoned in the county from FA-1 to multi -family in 2000. The other northern neighbor where the Sunflower Subdivision is located was rezoned from FA-1 to R-1 in 1981. A rezoning of the subject property in the county to urban density would be virtually automatic were the property not subject to the IGA between the city and county. Now, let's see what the city's adopted plans and policies say about land uses for this property and the surrounding area. Quoting from City Plan Principles and Policies, "The Structure Plan is a map that sets forth a basic framework of neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges in a simplified diagram of how the Fort Collins urban area should evolve over the next twenty years". Referring to the Structure Plan, other than the Boxelder Creek channel, the entire west half of this section east of 1-25 and between Highway 14 and Prospect Road is indicated for either Commercial or Employment land uses. The Structure Plan envisions commercial development for both the Highway 14 and Prospect Road interchanges, with employment land uses in between. The Boxelder Creek channel is shown as open lands. With regard to the 47 ac. property, excluding the Boxelder Creek area, the entire property is shown for Employment land uses. The LMN district as an urban land use for this property is consistent with the Structure Plan and is actually less intense than the Employment land use on the Structure Plan. The next document in the evolution of city -approved plans supporting the requested land uses is the 1-25 Corridor Plan, officially adopted in November 2000. The Structure Plan indicates that the area on either side of 1-25, between Please understand that this property is not being proposed for development at this time, only for annexation and zoning. An application for development may not occur for years. However, when such a development application is made, the strict requirements of the Land Use Code regarding Compact Urban Growth Standards will apply. These requirements are rarely met by a property at the time of annexation. However, this property currently meets these Compact Urban Growth Standards, and this deserves mention: Reading from Section 3.7.1 of the LUC `The city has adopted a compact growth policy that will encourage and direct development to take place within areas contiguous to existing development in the community. The General Standard for this reads "No development shall be approved unless it is located within city limits and meets the specific standards set forth in this Division relating to the required degree of contiguity, availability of adequate public facilities and access. " Regarding the degree of contiguity, the Code says that at least 1/6 of the proposed development boundaries must be contiguous to existing urban development within either the city or unincorporated Larimer County within the UGA. In point of fact, 64% of the perimeter of this property is contiguous to urban density development, four (4) times what the Code requires to meet the city's compact urban growth standards. Regarding adequate public facililities, the Code reads, "The purpose of the adequate public facilities management system is to establish an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development." The property meets the requirement of the city's Adequate Public Facilities Management System. These requirement include the following: First, the development must have access to an improved arterial street network. This property currently has access at its east border from Carriage Parkway, a collector road, that is fully -improved to city standards. Carriage Parkway forms a 4-way signalized intersection with S.H. 14, and this intersection is located % mile east of the recently -upgraded interchange with 1-25. Second, the development shall have adequate water service to the property. There is a 12" recently -installed water line in Carriage Parkway and to the property. Third, the development shall have adequate wastewater service to the property. There is a 16" sanitary sewer line bordering Boxelder Creek and running through the property. 2 4. To: Fort Collins City Council for February 18, 2003 Council Meeting Date: February 12, 2002 Purpose: Applicant Information to Council members which the Applicant Will Not Be Afforded Time to Present at Council Meeting Background and Justifications for the State Highway 14-East Frontage Road Annexation, LMN Zoning and Open Lands This request for annexation and zoning was submitted to the City July 13, 2000, over 2'/z years ago. At the suggestion of staff, the applicant had voluntarily agreed to a delayed review process to allow the city time to complete its 1-25 Subarea Plan. Now 31/2 years in the works, the fate of the Subarea Plan is uncertain due to division on the Council. According to staff there is now a final draft ready for Council consideration. This draft is the product of dozens of public hearings, four Council work sessions, 100's of staff an volunteer hours, $85,000 for outside consultants, and approval by the P&Z Board. The staff will tell you that this annexation and zoning is consistent with this draft and that the draft is consistent with the 1-25 Corridor Plan. Despite the fact that the annexation, LMN zoning and open lands set aside of this proposal are completely consistent with this final 1-25 Subarea Plan work product, the applicant will not be basing this application on the anticipated adoption of this Plan. It is quite possible that there may never be an 1-25 Subarea Plan, and after 31/2 years its purposes will simply fad into the ongoing update to City Plan, that could in itself take years to adopt. For these reasons, the justifications to follow are based upon the city's plans, principles and policies that are irrefutably in place today. These are the existing rules and these are the ones the applicant is playing by and your have sworn in your oath of office to uphold. Let me begin by addressing the question of annexation. City Plan Principle GM- 2.1 under Annexation Policies states that the City Council will weigh the following factors when considering the annexation of new land into the incorporated limits: 'The property must meet all statuary requirements for annexation according to the laws of the State of Colorado." This is the 1/6 (or 16 %) contiguity requirement. The fact is that this property is 36 % contiguous to city limits, exceeding the State requirement by 21/4 times. Next: "The property must be currently located within the Community Growth Management Area. This property is squarely in the GMA, with the existing boundary located at C.R. 5, one half mile to the east February 18, 2003 This is a summary of the Board's comments: Member Colton agreed that we should annex this property, but he has concerns about having it LMN as opposed to Urban Estate. He thinks that this property could become a much higher density that the other three neighborhoods next to it. He thought this could become anywhere from 5 to 10 units per acre. He did not think that this is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods in the area. On the 1-25 Sub Area Plan, which the Board has not seen in almost a year, the Board has not heard what Council's comments are. All he knows is that they have asked for a soft edge, and that we don't want a lot of housing on the east side of 1-25, we don't want mixed -use activity centers over there, because that is not the option that Council has been given direction on. He thought that the draft plan that Council has is going a long way in the direction, but he thought there was a possibility that if Council had more discussion, that Council would say that this should be Urban Estate and not LMN. He felt that the 1-25 Sub Area Plan needs another round of review, and he is not hanging his hat on that document He is looking at the surrounding properties and seeing that this could potentially be a much higher density and it would be density on the east side of 1-25, where he had heard Council at a worksession or two say that they really don't want that mixed -use higher density east of 1-25. That is why he would not be supporting this, because he does not think that there will be any parks, little neighborhood commercial centers, it would be driving into town and he feels it is an inappropriate place to put high density. Member Craig concurred with Member Colton and would not be supporting the change of the Structure Map to LMN. When she remembers when the Board reviewed the 1-25 Sub Area Plan in January of 2002, it specifically showed this piece of property as Urban Estate. Then in July, the draft showed it as LMN. She did not feel, as a Board, that they discussed any of these changes, and she does not know how these changes came about. She does have a draft that does shows this property as Urban Estate at one time, and she does agree that it should be part of the feathering that goes into the existing development that is out there under Larimer County as well as some of the development that is less dense than Urban Estate, which is adjacent to and just south of this property, along with the Industrial. We have putt Urban Estate as a buffer to some of the County development. She feels that Urban Estate is more appropriate. Memorandum To: City Council Members From: Georgiana Deines, Administrative Support Sup r-visor, Thru: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Plarmi Date: 02/18/03 Re: Draft Summary minutes of the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation, Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment. On December 19, 2002 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 — 0 to recommend approval of the annexation for the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning based on the findings of fact and conclusion on page 7 of the staff report, specifically items A and B and that an Open Space Agreement needs to be in place by the February 18, 2002 City Council Hearing. The Board voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the amendment to the Structure Plan Map and 5-2 to recommend approval of the requested zoning of LMN, Low -Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Public participation: Steve Pfister, 531 Del Clair, has been very involved with the 1-25 Corridor for the past three years. He felt that the proposed LMN zoning was very consistent with the meetings and hearings that he attended during the three year time period. He has also been involved with the Sunflower project, just immediately north of this property, for the past four years as it has gone through the County approval process. There is just a little under 200 units, which is about 5 units per acre. The Clydesdale project is 225 units, which is also high density. Just north of Highway 14, there is the Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park, which has about 400 units and is very high density. There is already existing high densities in four different projects north of this property. The intersection of 1-25 and Prospect has been identified as an activity center that would provide the housing areas with shopping and services. To provide affordable housing, we need higher density and this project would have a mix of housing with an affordable housing component. Jim Mokler, 4424 East Mulberry stated that he is the developer of the Interchange Business Park, which is immediately north of this site. He is also lives across the street from this project on Mulberry. It is his understanding that City Plan, with the LMN zoning encourages having employment centers next to the LMN zoning. What they are building at Interchange Business Park is in fact an employment center, which creates many jobs in the area. They would be happy to have additional housing in the area that would afford people to be able to walk or ride their bike to go to work. As part of their development plan, they dedicated a trail easement that wraps around the east and south part of their property and immediately adjoins this site that is being talked about tonight. He believes that the LMN zoning is consistent with what City Plan says and he is in full support of the annexation with LMN zoning. No Text of both the 1-25 Regional and 1-25 Subarea Plan by setting aside this 10 acres as open space within a development plan. The applicant leaves to your guidance whether a draft annexation agreement including these conditions for annexation should accompany the petition or whether the conditions are sufficiently clear to be discussed without a draft agreement as part of the public hearing process. Attached is an updated Petition for Annexation along with ten (10) copies of the annexation map containing a current vicinity map and the revised annexation name as the State Highway 14-E. Frontage Road Annexation. Thank you for the guidance from staff regarding this petition for annexation and zoning. Sincerely, Lester M. Kaplan Imago Enterprises, Inc. 0 d. 1-25 Access. A fully -improved collector road, Carriage Parkway, dead ends at the east boundary and connects this property to a signalized intersection at State Highway 14 about one-half mile east of 1-25. The property is within minutes from the improved I-25/State Highway 14 interchange. Easy access to 1-25 reduces vehicle -miles -traveled and has low demand on existing city roadways e. Existing Infrastructure. The property has improved collector street access from Carriage Parkway to the east, adequate sanitary sewer extending through the property, a 12 inch domestic water line to the east boundary, and an existing storm water conveyance and outflow location. f. Inconsistent with Purpose of Urban Estate District. The proposed LMN zoning district is the lowest density planned residential district in the Land Use Code, except for the Urban Estate District (U-E), where the maximum density is 2 d.u./acre. The main purposes of the U-E district are to assure compatibility with adjoining, existing low -density subdivisions and to provide a transition between intense urban development and rural or open lands (Division 4.1A of Land Use Code). Neither purpose is applicable with regard to this annexation. 4_ Open Space Conditions Accompanying Annexation and LMN Zoning The applicant is agreeing to retain the open land character of the approximately 10 acre frontage of the property, defined as the area between the frontage road and the east boundary of the existing federal floodplain. Most of this property, excluding about two (2) acres, is in the Soxelder Creek floodplain. This represents a downzoning from the existing C-commercial zoning district in the county. This area has been identified by the City as one of the three (3) potential locations for open lands along the City's portion of the 1-25 corridor. Achieving this open lands objective through voluntary means is an opportunity to advance the Open Lands and Natural Areas objectives of the 1-25 Regional Plan at no public acquisition cost. The applicant would in turn require of the city that the entire 47 acres be zoned LMN and qualify as part of the net land area for the purpose of density calculations. In summary, 64 percent of this property adjoins urban density development, and the prerequisite water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and improved roadway access are to the property. The "final draft" of the city's 1-25 Subarea Plan indicates the requested LMN zoning for the property. The "final draft" also identifies the west approximate 10 acres as a significant location for open lands. The applicant is prepared to support the conservation and open lands objectives 5 a. The current, "final draft" of this planning effort shows the LMN zoning district for the entire 47 acre property, including the approximately 10 acres facing the frontage road and currently zoned C-commercial in Larimer County. b. The planning process has identified three (3) significant locations in the Fort Collins portion of the 1-25 corridor for open lands, which locations were discussed with City Council at its January 22, 2002 work session. One such location is the approximately 10 acre frontage of this property, most of which is in the existing Boxelder Creek floodplain. The LMN zoning district for the entire property allows the applicant to support this open land objective within this commercially -zoned area. The applicant would concede to a downzoning from C-commercial for this west portion of the property. The applicant would also agree to preserve the open lands character of that portion as part of the site design for the entire property. This would contribute to the conservation and open land objectives of both the City -adopted 1-25 Regional Plan and City Council's January 22, 2002 direction for the Subarea Plan, while placing the appropriate zoning on the property. Designation of this property for the LMN zoning district in the "final draft" of the 1-25 Sub Area Plan is indicative of many factors which support this land use, including the following: a. Abutting Development. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the property's perimeter is contiguous to existing "urban density development" as defined in the Land Use Code. This existing development is either commercial or a residential density in the county similar to the city's LMN zoning district. b. Neighboring Employment Potential. The property is within one mile of one of the highest concentrations of employment and industrial land uses in the entire Urban Growth Area. The Interstate Business Park is adjacent to the north, and 85 acres of Industrially -zoned land in the city limits is to the south. Over 160 acres of E-employment zoned land is on the west side of 1-25 and also in city limits. c. Neighboring Shopping Potential. The property is also within one mile of one of the highest concentrations of retail and commercial land uses in the entire Urban Growth Area. The 1-25/Prospect intersection includes approximately 25 acres of C-commercial zoned property. Also, the potential exists for a regional "activity center" as defined by the 1-25 Regional Plan at both the NE corner of 1-25/Prospect and the NE corner of I-25/State Highway 14. 4 2. Background The 47.15 acre area of the State Highway 14/East Frontage Road Annexation (previously the "Prospect/East Frontage Road Annexation") was submitted to the city in July 2000. The annexation was in conjunction with a comprehensive rezoning request by another applicant for the adjoining Galatia Property at the northeast intersection of 1-25 and Prospect Road. In staffs September 1, 2000 letter to the applicants, staff recommended that an amended petition be submitted before any further processing of that rezoning request. An amendment to the rezoning has not been submitted by that applicant, and the rezoning application is inactive. Regarding the subject annexation, staff supported the annexation but recommended that the property be zoned T-transition until the adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan, which was estimated to occur in the spring of 2001. Rather than proceeding with the annexation and a "holding" zone district, the applicant waited for the spring 2001 Plan adoption. The applicant was then advised by staff to expect an August or September 2001 Plan adoption, which also did not occur. Staff is not longer giving a timeline for the 1-25 Subarea Plan. In that the Plan attempts to address the controversial issue of where to place the Growth Management Area boundary east of 1-25, any adoption of an 1-25 Subarea Plan is now intertwined with the ongoing five year update to City Plan, scheduled as an 18 months process, but which may also take considerably longer. The question of whether the existing Growth Management Area boundary one-half mile east of this property should or should not change is not material to the zoning of this property for several reasons. First, delaying land use decisions based upon something that may or may not change in the future is unfair and legally questionable. Second, the City has more than adequate planning criteria through existing policies to rationally determine a land use for this property. Finally, the two and one-half year effort on the 1-25 Subarea Plan has certainly produced sufficient additional direction for zoning this 47 acre property at the time of annexation, despite the outcome of the GMA boundary question. 3. Justifications for LMN Zoning District Two significant outcomes of the 1-25 Subarea Plan planning process to date support the LMN zoning district for this property: 3 The property appears to be consistent with both the City's Compact Urban Growth Standards (requiring only 1/6th contiguity) and Adequate Public Facilities criteria as stated in the Land Use Code. There are 1) improved - collector street access from Carriage Parkway to the east, 2) adequate sanitary sewer extending through the property, 3) a 12 inch domestic water to the east boundary, and 4) an existing storm water conveyance and outflow location on the property. Directly to the south is the Galatia Annexation at the northeast intersection of 1-25/ Prospect Road in the city limits. This 230 acre undeveloped property is comprised of industrial, commercial and residential land uses and includes a 100 site along Prospect Road and owned by the Poudre R-1 School District for a future high school location. Three developed county subdivisions in the UGA border the property to the north and east: • Interchange Business Park, consisting of 65 acres at the southeast intersection of 1-25/Prospect Road. • Sunflower Subdivision, a senior -oriented, modular home neighborhood on 37 acres at 5 du/acre. Rezoned 1981 in the county from FA-1 to R-1. • Clydesdale Subdivision, a single-family neighborhood on 80 acres at 3 du/acre. Rezoned 2000 in the county from FA-1 to M-1. Each of these three developments are subject to the IGA agreement between the city and the county requiring future annexation to the city following the establishment of the required 1/6th contiguity to city limits. The west approximately 10 acres of the property (less 2 acres along the frontage road) are in the existing Boxelder Creek federal floodplain. The creek traverses north -south through the middle of this 10 acre area. This floodplain is eligible for modification to allow development. Such floodplain revisions have already occurred in the Interchange Business Park to the north where there is now commercial development. The city is currently evaluating the Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough Floodplain and is tentatively showing, before any master planning, approximately 12 acres east of the designated floodplain as a sheet flow, "shallow flooding" area. According to Marsha Hilmes-Robinson with the city's Storm Water Department, this 12 acre area may be eliminated pursuant to the updating to the city's storm water master plan, currently in process. But otherwise, the property could be filled and channeled to allow development. 2 T H f K A P L A I`.,T CO Ivy P A NY i N C 0 R r' 0 RAT ED November 20, 2002 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: State Highway 14 /East Frontage Road Annexation (formerly Prospect/East Frontage Road Annexation) Dear Ted: This letter is a follow-up to our November 4, 2002 meeting, which included Ken Waido and Joe Frank, to discuss resurrecting the above -referenced annexation petition, submitted to the city July 13, 2000. This annexation and zoning have been on hold with the city for nearly two and one-half years in anticipation of city adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan. I understand from our meeting that there is currently no timeframe for adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan other than now linking the plan to the five-year update to City Plan. However, and as we discussed, the work already completed by staff and consultants plus the numerous public hearings and City Council work sessions present a planning foundation for identifying strategic open space areas and residential densities in the vicinity of this annexation. This progress, coupled with existing land use characteristics surrounding this property, provide a sufficient public policy basis to proceed with annexation and zoning. The following is a property description, background information, justifications for the requested Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning district, and the "open space conditions" we discussed as being part of the annexation petition: 1. Property Description This 47.15 acre property is located on the east side of Interstate 25 between Prospect Road and State Highway 14, with approximately 1,012 feet of frontage along the east frontage road. The property is in the city's existing Urban Growth Area, with 36 percent of the border contiguous to the city limits and 64 percent contiguous to urban density development as defined by the Land Use Code. i5ro ve- qq �" v �• Fort Collins, Colorado 80325 • 9 O'226-6819 • Fax 970 207-9256 CITY OF FORT COLLINS MASTER STREET PLAN Y• dlWf •,Mf ow-.. , 1 ' 9Yew - Sown lr,of.. '.: n.,r .•i mans r�� 9mmwn .___`5 �`\ r __ moen f r - fi i '. rr..w �♦ �,, ' , • 1'"A.Iw..- r wums m _. � k w a• ,. ._._, J � _ �1 . una � 1 S• or0-1 Y. • c Ii %A _ noon, no . t•' 1 r an a r , 3 er•r ' ,r1ln\r•" °5+r. i . r --•--- . 'I LIB. ( 6\rd A w\arw,w n , n 0 e on. y • •S .•�.. � d i _. •.N� j' fir.. � mare. 9 P.ur w 3 Nnir• I llhw,nlim ln, And lmdl ' -•---- r nrridu and ropnrlexrd Plan, ollhe rill'.- i� : r rwln'a .-.---• , II GI NO '.' ..•�` . Inlrn Mnar t sad• Separated Ime„nvnn Main. Anvial 4 lams MA" Atlmitl f, laro, Bep4M MVO A,frnAl a larrr. MI.N Allerial Marv" Ono, Way Aamial , nIIKIM J Iam, = St�v� •?PI ---•••• l.ilY limit, I Ii.A BrAmdA,y Primed Jaamp 15. 2002 0 BNRN Gangxmatinn t-nnidn, A�Rfl (Na: \I.1W/rM 1'I+n 11-11 moo IN NWa n 1„•. Volvo, t era, I \UM I( A I'aN IIt wo,,, 0 Yryl NIY11 \y11N / .Y4M� (.1 ly' of �Ici'l Cod I If r, mi CITY OF FORT COLLINS x% i9 vary Lake Ho CLIA Mj 1,ma,eL.%e WU11A •0 W W C4 Or LJ uk. u46L*k,. W YK OR ....... ---------- % ... ...... II CIty Palk Lake l wW6vu. il Z6 - — — -------- W lmrcv" 4, Legend Street Center Lines Railroad City Limits /V Urban Growth Area Water Features I fthl: -; 1. el ,f F lr of No Text Sewer Service Areas and Major Sewer Interceptors LEGEND. Mein S., Lia. Urh.n Gr h pre. Line •---- C", Limey Printed: Rr ary II, 7,007 ----- = -•- ----- 1 (I a l Q I l irr �•�r�n j� �_ am-Lt. �i ;l �J No Text c. The following districts presently provide service with the above referenced annexation: SCHOOL DISTRICT Poudre School District FIRE DISTRICT Poudre Fire Authority HOSPITAL DISTRICT Poudre Valley Hospital District PEST CONTROL DISTRICT Larimer County Pest Control SANITATION DISTRICT Boxelder Sanitation District WATER DISTRICT ELCO Water District ELECTRIC POWER Excel Energy Company — 7- 66- C01VVex-7-E0 -r+ C i7 y L ; M. The City Clerk must notify, via certified mail, those districts providing service in the area to be annexed (as per above list), no later than 25 days before the Public Hearing on the annexation. ANNEXATION IMPACT REPORT NAME OF ANNEXATION: State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning DATE OF REVIEW BY THE FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL: February 18, 2003 and March 4, 2003 The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements of CRS 31-12-108.5 which indicates a municipality shall prepare an annexation impact report and file a copy of the report with the Board of County Commissioners governing the area proposed to the annexed. I. Attached to this report are the following: a. A vicinity map; b. A map showing the present boundaries of the City of Fort Collins and the Growth Management Area (GMA) in the vicinity of the above referenced annexation. The GMA represents has been agreed to by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners and the Council of the City of Fort Collins and contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA; c. A map of stormwater basins, ditches, canals, and waterways; d. The City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan; e. A map of Sewer Service Areas and Major Sewer Interceptors; f. A map of Water District Service Areas; g. A map of Electrical Service Territories within UGA Boundary; and h. An Annexation Map. 11. This is a voluntary annexation and zoning of an area approximately 47.15 acres located on the east side of the 1-25 East Frontage Road approximately one -quarter mile south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). The annexation meets CRS 31-12- 104 that not less than one -sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contiguous with the City of Fort Collins. a. The property making up this annexation is owned by: Imago Enterprises. b. The above referenced annexation will be zoned as LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. Municipal services will be extended into the area as development occurs. Municipal services, such as police protection, are financed from the City's General Fund. Marty Tharp: The design standards are good in that they avoid the strip mall development pattern. I like the idea of preserving the Resource Recovery Farm as open space. I prefer Mulberry as the site of the regional activity center since it's already a commercial corridor. Prospect is more employment and industrial oriented with limited road access. Regarding affordable housing, I don't like it so far out on the fringe. I prefer that it be closer in and convenient to services. I prefer the feathering of density out to the County open lands. Karen W.: The design standards are good. I prefer that we sell the Resource Recovery Farm on the open market. Regarding the location of the activity center, I suggest we keep our options open on both sites. Affordable housing is best allowed in the L-M-N where the opportunity for the density bonus is available, not in the U-E. The present vacancy rate at the Housing Authority is a cyclical blip. David Roy: I am also comfortable with the design standards but concerned about the economic impact of parallel roads. This could become expensive. I prefer that the entire Resource Recovery Farm remain open. Mulberry should be the priority for the regional activity center but keep the option open on Prospect as a second choice. Affordable housing should be closer in near services with less distance to travel. I am concemed about air quality and the relationship of housing near I-25. Karen W.: Keep in mind that L-M-N provides an opportunity for affordable housing. It does not mean that if we zone land L-M-N, it automatically develops as an affordable housing project. Mayor: I agree, and just as L-M-N provides an opportunity for affordable housing, it can support high -end housing just as well. I agree that we should preserve the Resource Recovery Farm as open space but I like Kurt's idea about a rebate. I think either Mulberry or Prospect are suitable for an activity center, both are workable, but I have a preference for Prospect. Keep in mind that development is market driven. I am not convinced that the density bonus allowed for affordable housing in the L-M-N really works. 7 Mayor: Let's now move from questions to providing some direction for Staff. Kurt Kastein: My preference is to elevate the Prospect site as the commercial area Marty Tharp: My preference is that the commercial should be along Mulberry since that interchange is on a higher priority for future improvements. Mulberry already has four lanes whereas Prospect only has two lanes. Kurt Kastein: Looking back at Ken's comparison chart on the two sites, I see that it favors Prospect. I wonder if we could preserve both as an option. Greg Byme: That possibility is not unreasonable. Our primary objective is to keep local arterial traffic off the interstate. This requires a circulation system of collectors and minor arterials. Kurt Kastein: I am interested in creating more L-M-N. Ken Waido: This may cause some re-classification of some roadways to be up -graded. Bill Bertchy: We need to move forward. I feel positive about the design standards. I prefer that the Resource Recovery Farm remain open as this will add value to the corridor. Regarding the choice of the two locations for the future activity center, I like preserving the two options. Perhaps the Mulberry site could be more regional in scope and the Prospect be smaller. I am comfortable with the land use pattern. Eric Hamrick: I also agree that we should move forward and bring the Plan to the various boards and commissions. I am concerned about air quality and the proximity of residential next to the interstate. I prefer that we purchase the entire Resource Recovery Farm. I prefer Mulberry as the site of the activity center. I prefer limited activity at Prospect with a feathering of density east toward the edge of the G.M.A. I have some concerns about placing affordable housing near the interstate and near the Boxelder floodplain. Ken Waido: Most of the Urban Estate land is away from the floodplain. Mayor: I prefer that we keep houses out of the floodplain. Kurt Kastein: I have an idea. If we sell the Resource Recovery Farm, we should take the proceeds and provide a rebate to the rate payers. We should keep a portion for development and capture the value of property and sales tax revenue. The Mulberry option for the activity center is fine, but I prefer that we keep the option open at Prospect as well. The 20-year buildable supply of land is important. Our kids are growing up and need to be able to live here. Only a 13 —15 year supply is available. I prefer swapping some Urban Estate land in favor of L-M-N land. I am concerned about future costs of roads. 0 Ken Waido: We will try to obtain this study and evaluate it. Kurt Kastein: I'm concerned about having sufficient land for affordable housing. City Plan calls for a 20-year buildable supply of land. This ties into the inventory of land analysis. This is one of the bullet items in City Plan. Ken Waido: Yes, the City Plan Monitoring Report indicates that we are in a 13-15 year timeframe of land inventory. Kurt Kastein: Do we still want a 20-year buildable supply of land? I suggest expanding the L-M-N to provide more housing. Kurt Kastein: I have a question about the 80-foot setback. Does this apply to the L-M-N area? Ken Waido: Actually, in both the L-M-N and U-E areas, the residential setback is one - quarter mile. Kurt Kastein: Does this go beyond the current L-M-N standards? Ken Waido: Yes. David Roy: How many affordable units are vacant right now? Marty Tharp: The Fort Collins Housing Authority has a vacancy rate of I 1-12% which is unusually high. I don't know if this is just a blip. Karen W.: Let's leave our options open. I suggest we keep the L-M-N and that we keep the 20-year buildable supply timeframe. Kurt Kastein: Secondary roads are preferred for primary access to properties versus the frontage roads? Ken Waido: Yes. Kurt Kastein: I'm concerned about the parallel road system and its potential cost. I would like to see a diagram or a master street plan, including the proposed zone changes. Eric Hamrick: I'm concerned about the general direction we are going regarding this whole area. There followed a long discussion among the mayor and Council about City Council direction from the last study session on this matter. Topics included roadways, the master street plan, downgrading four -lane arterials to three -lane, and the funding of highway interchange improvements. 5 Ken Waido: There are three areas on the plan designated as open lands. First is the Resource Recovery Farm. Second is the west side of Boxelder Creek on the Kaplan property. The third area is up north. Greg Byrne: Keep in mind that the new rainfall criteria for stormwater management results in larger stormwater detention ponds providing de -facto open space. Eric Hamrick: Could you explain the design standards? Ken Waido: Our intent is to adopt the design standards for inclusion into the Land Use Code at the same time as the adoption of the Plan. Eric Hamrick: Could go into some detail about the 80-foot setback and the one -quarter mile setback? How are these measured? Ken Waido: These setbacks are measured at the outer edge of the public right-of-way for I-25. This means that as the frontage roads bulge out away from the highway, the setbacks bulge out correspondingly. Eric Hamrick: Do we have these setbacks in place now? Joe Frank: No. Greg Byrne: In fact, under the current condition, we have just the opposite with our "build -to" lines. Eric Hamrick: I think that 80 feet is too close to an interchange or highway. Joe Frank: Keep in mind the setback is measured from the outermost edge of the right-of-way. Eric Hamrick: Could you explain more about the one -quarter mile setback? Ken Waido: Within one -quarter mile of the interstate right-of-way, secondary uses and residential single family lots would be prohibited. Between one -quarter and one-half mile of the interstate, residential lots are encouraged to be clustered leaving open vistas. Eric Hamrick: I am concerned about air quality and the impact of residential so close to the interstate. I suggest that one -quarter mile setback is not adequate and could pose a health risk. Have we done a study air quality? I recall seeing a study that it is not healthy to have residential near the interstate. I recall that Nancy York may have some knowledge about this study. Mayor: I'm concerned about a reference to a study. Do we know if its factual? Is it scientific? 4 David Roy: Concerned about the northeast corner of I-25 and Prospect. Do our proposed land uses match the existing County zoning? Would like to see an aerial of existing uses compared with the proposed land uses and concerned about role the County plays in development of our Sub Area plans. Karen W.: We always work with the County as part of all our Sub Area plans. Ken Waido: In this case, the County is involved but not a partner like in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Bill Bertchy: Concerned about the setback for housing. What about Waterglen? Ken Waido: Waterglen would have to be setback one -quarter mile under the proposed design standards. Bill Bertchy: Questions about L-M-N zoning. Ken Waido: L-M-N zoning is proposed for the area one-half mile on either side of East Mulberry to match the established land use pattern approved, developed and developing in the County. Bill Bertchy: Why not L-M-N on one-half mile either side of Prospect? Ken Waido: This area is vacant with no established land use pattern. Greg Byrne: The Plan suggests that L-M-N is appropriate for either side of Mulberry but not Prospect. Further, L-M-N would not be palatable for the east side of the interstate along Prospect Road. Eric Hamrick: Do we go to boards and commissions after study session? Ken Waido: Yes we go to boards for input but we come to Council for policy direction. Eric Hamrick: What did the P & Z think? Why don't we have minutes? Would prefer to review minutes. Ken Waido: We had a forum earlier in the year. Eric Hamrick: What about P & Z's big packet? John Fischbach: That's what Council received last time we had a study session on this item. Marty Tharp: Can you tell me more about open lands? 3 • Providing opportunities for affordable housing is goal that is carried over from the Regional Plan. A chart describes the relative differences between the housing densities allowed in the Urban Estate (U-E) zone versus the Low Density Mixed - Use (L-M-N) zone. Most of the City's affordable housing opportunities are in the Medium Density Mixed -Use zone. The L-M-N contains an incentive for affordable housing projects on ten acres or more to achieve a density of 12 d.u./acre. The U-E zone is capped at a maximum of 2 d.u./acre and contains no affordable housing bonus. L-M-N, therefore, is a better zone district to offer the affordable housing opportunity. • There are two parcels in the Sub Area that are vacant and within one-half mile of East Mulberry, and, therefore, eligible for L-M-N zoning. One is 27 acres north of Mulberry and one is 47 acres south of Mulberry. • Multi -family housing is a permitted secondary use in Activity Centers which would provide an opportunity for affordable housing. This concluded Ken Waido's overview of the major Plan elements. The Mayor then opened up the floor to Councilmembers for questions. Mayor: The Mayor had some questions about increasing the opportunity for affordable housing and stated that he sees a need for more affordable housing potential. Marty Tharp: Concerned about existing County zoning within the Plan boundary Ken Waido: Within the Plan area, County zoning includes O, Open which allows a maximum of one unit per 10 acres, FA-1 zoning which allows a maximum of one unit per 2.29 acres, or with sewer, allows two units per acre. There is a mix of County zoning along Mulberry with M-1 for manufactured homes and R, Residential which allows 3 units per acre. Marty Tharp: Concerned about floodplain issues; Ken Waido: The Cooper Slough is on the west and Boxelder Creek on the east side of the interstate. The Boxelder floodplain includes the main channel as well as a small break-out area at a sharp bend in the channel. This break-out area is a spillover where the water flows south and then works its way back into the main channel. Density can be shifted out of the floodplain by clustering as long as overall density does not exceed the mandated maximums. David Roy: Does the County need to be involved? Ken Waido: Yes, we meet with the County planning staff as we have on other Sub Area Plans in the Growth Management Area like Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek. The County grants us the ability to plan areas within the G.M.A. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SUMMARY I-25 SUB AREA PLAN AUGUST 27, 2002 The meeting began with an overview of fundamental aspects of the Plan presented by Ken Waido of the Advance Planning Department. The key aspects are as follows: • The Plan covers the area one-half mile on the west side and one mile on the east side (to C.R. #5) of the interstate. The north boundary is C.R. #54 (Douglas Rd.) and the south boundary is Carpenter Road. • The Growth Management Boundary does not change. • The future land use plan for the corridor calls for mostly Urban Estate zoning with the exception of one-half mile on either side of East Mulberry which calls for Low Density Mixed -Use. • The Plan includes adopting a set of design standards to be incorporated into the Land Use Code. The primary goal of the standards is to prevent the corridor from being stripped -out with commercial development. Secondary uses are prohibited within one -quarter mile of the interstate (as measured from the outer edge of the frontage road boundary) which matches the Mountain Vista Area Plan. • No single family detached housing allowed within one -quarter mile of the interstate. Single family within the corridor will have a clustering option to preserve open space. • Commercial development will be set back from the interstate by a minimum of 80 feet similar to the Harmony Corridor east of Boardwalk. Commercial buildings along the highway can have no more than 50% of the site devoted to building frontage. • Access to buildings are from the rear along the building and the highway along frontage secondary road system, not between ge roads. • The Resource Recovery Farm should remain in open space with a small portion reserved for future development. • There are two options for the future retailIactivity center. Option One is the northeast comer of East Mulberry and I-25. Option Two is the northwest corner of East Prospect and I-25. A chart describes the relative advantages and disadvantages of both. Council can provide direction on emphasizing one over the other or preserving both. ,.Tj all . �•.�I N s y �1y d �g v V n ll 1.. � t U. k � y �"—1 zz e.bw/Wz.(L � i//{��y�g'+.%J s/t`♦ M j�f,�1 k. :.t ... �_ F ,T 5.1t•.f�Ili � % L Tom. � � a ( + �,a r � d��• ,. � �+�i t } ' e�ticlN t •7Y � \ yi. x'a AA t ~�•s a�Ce'�w_�,tr! t.Jtu �I� dL,ti� �d',f• '.(y.;' � eta ..; '�'- � t � • �f�� _ '`t .' T'; ( *• \l• N ,f y lr M J 1 `2}'t t jNi a �� �. _ i � {. t*e' t' � >r � I , • 4r 1 � �}�. Y N%xt 4 H 111111 Y 33 ii Ab, Vicinity • Legend 1 Cooper Slough Tour Route • a No Text OUTSIDE INSIDE RIOIECr NO1ECT AREA Commercial Corridor 0 Neighborhood Commercial District Community Commercial District _ Employment District Industrial District Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood ((12+ unitsiacre) j Low Density Mixed -Use Neighboh000d ((5.8 units/acre) Urban Estate (2 du/acre) r—. Rural Subdivision _ River and Stream Corridors Proposed Open Space County Agncuttural ,A 100 year Flood Plain 0 Rural/Open Lands (County FA-1, Fanning and 0, Open Zoning) City -Owned Natural Areas ® Transit Center/Park and Ride --- Conceptual Roadway Network Nigel Activity Center Boundary Study Area Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area (GMA) Timnath City Limits Ft. Collins City Limits 1 0 1 wrs A. Souv-lSrd0.faf. GlS, uvYw rbvar 415. eree,ee oem+ne xaox <4: :..::::......County Re 33— ,-20-00 State Highway 14-East Frontage Road 12/4/02 N Annexation & Zoning i Type 11 (LUC) 1 inch : 1000 feet v r t ow. IN �,1 OF -WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 101 1.79FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT ONE OF SAID EXEMPTION PLAT; THENCE S 89°40'58" E ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1171.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S00'29'22"W A DISTANCE OF 403.53 FEET; THENCE S 89"32'33" E A DISTANCE OF 1417.34 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE S00" 15'39" W ON SAID EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 612.49 FEET TO THE CENTER 1/4 CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE N89°30'38" W ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 2588.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above -described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of February, A.D. 2003, and to be presented For final passage on the 4th day of March, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of March, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE STATE HIGHWAY 14 - EAST FRONTAGE ROAD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by including the property known as the State Highway 14 - East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIN ER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE EASTERLY END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP ON A #6 REBAR STAMPED "LS 24307" AND AT THE WESTERLY END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "RBD, INC, LS 17483" IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N89'30'38" W, A DISTANCE OF 2643.04 FEET. COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE N89°30'38" W, ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/2, A DISTANCE OF 55.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 FRONTAGE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EXEMPTION PLAT, RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1985, AS RECEPTION NO. 85062073, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE N00° 19'37" E ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT- be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the State Highway 14 - East Frontage Road Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Lwimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 4. That any application for approval of a Project Development Plan for the land described within this annexation shall include that portion of the annexed property located between the current eastern edge of the one hundred year flood plain of Boxelder Creek as currently defined by the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the westerly property boundary of the annexed property (being the right-of-way of the I-25 eastern Frontage Road) as a part of the Project Development Plan but which part shall remain in an open and natural condition. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of February, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of March, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of March, A.D. 2003. ►101*019 City Clerk 2 Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 032, 2003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE STATE HIGHWAY 14 - EAST FRONTAGE ROAD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2003-003, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Council does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the following described property, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE EASTERLY END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP ON A #6 REBAR STAMPED "LS 24307" AND AT THE WESTERLY END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "RBD, INC, LS 17483" IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N89°30'38" W, A DISTANCE OF 2643.04 FEET. COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE N89°30'38" W, ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/2, A DISTANCE OF 55.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 FRONTAGE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EXEMPTION PLAT, RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1985, AS RECEPTION NO. 85062073, LARMIER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE N00° 19'37" E ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1011.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT ONE OF SAID EXEMPTION PLAT; THENCE S 89°40'58" E ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1171.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S00°29'22"W A DISTANCE OF 403.53 FEET; THENCE S 89°32'33" E A DISTANCE OF 1417.34 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE S00° 15'39" W ON SAID EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 612.49 FEET TO THE CENTER 1/4 CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE N89°30'38" W ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 2588.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. RESOLUTION 2003-025 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE STATE HIGHWAY 14 - EAST FRONTAGE ROAD ANNEXATION WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of Fort Collins for property to be known as the State Highway 14 - East Frontage Road Annexation; and WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law, the Council has held a hearing on said annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 2. That the Council hereby finds that there is at least one -sixth (1/6) contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City. Section 3. That the Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and conditions to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 4. That the Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act. Section 5. That the Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the State Highway 14 - East Frontage Road Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 18th day of February, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION 2003-024 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP WHEREAS, the City has received a petition for annexation and zoning of certain property located on the east side of Interstate Highway 25 and approximately one -quarter mile south of State Highway 14, which property is known as the "State Highway 14-East Frontage Road Annexation"; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed zoning for the State Highway 14-East Frontage Road Annexation complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the City's Structure Plan, but does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City's Structure Plan Map for that location; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed State Highway 14-East Frontage Road proposed zoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan except for the City's Structure Plan Map; and WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the State Highway 14-East Frontage Road Annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 18th day of February, A. D. 2003. Mayor FEN 01-WIN City Clerk (l � N r� DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 8. The annexation is located within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. 9. At the request of City Council, an Annexation Impact Report has been prepared which indicates that the parcel is able to be served with an urban level of municipal services. 10. The parcel is one-half mile west of County Road #5 which is the edge of the Growth Management Area. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: On December 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Board took the following three actions: Condition of Annexation: The owner is willing to commit to preserving the 100-year floodplain of Boxelder Creek, as currently defined and mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as permanent open space thus fulfilling the vision of the I-25 Sub Area Plan to preserve open vistas along stream corridors. This commitment is contained within the Annexation Ordinance as a condition. Annexation Impact Report: At the January 7, 2003 consideration of the Initiating Resolution, Council requested that Staff analyze the ability of the subject parcel to be served with an urban level public services. An Annexation Impact Report has been prepared and is attached. This report concludes that water, sewer, electrical, natural gas and telephone can be provided at the urban service level. Further, the site is located within the Boxelder Creek Stormwater Drainage Basin which has been mapped for the City's 100-year floodplain based on the new rainfall criteria. The subject site is contiguous to three urban -level County subdivisions located to the north between the subject parcel and East Mulberry. A collector street is planned to extend into the site linking the parcel to East Mulberry Street. In conclusion, the subject parcel is within one-half mile of East Mulberry and abuts three County subdivisions developing under urban densities. The site is one-half mile west of the eastern limit of the Growth Management Area leaving ample opportunity for density to transition, or "feather," to the edge as defined by County Road #5. Findings: 1. The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, as contained in the recently amended Intergovernmental Agreement — Growth Management Area. 2. The parcel meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for annexation by the City of Fort Collins. 3. The proposed Structure Plan Amendment is justified by being in compliance with the Final Draft of the I-25 Sub Area Plan and meets the requirements of Resolution 2000-140. 4. The requested zone district, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, is in conformance with the Final Draft of the I-25 Sub Area Plan and matches the existing level of urban development approved in Larimer County. 5. On January 7, 2002, City Council approved a Resolution which accepts the annexation petition and determines that the petition is in compliance with State law. 6. The annexation has 36.47% of its perimeter boundary contiguous with existing city limits which exceeds the required one -sixth as mandated by State law. 7. The parcel is found to have a community of interest with the City and the parcel is expected to urbanize shortly. DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street) to match existing County development. • The subject parcel should be considered for L-M-N zoning to match the existing urban densities and to provide opportunities for affordable housing. (Urban Estate does not provide the same opportunity.) The preservation of the Boxelder Creek riparian area is an important characteristic of the Corridor. Therefore, the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road request for annexation and zoning is in substantial compliance with Council direction and the I-25 Sub Area Plan Final Draft. Structure Plan Amendment: As mentioned, the Final Draft of the I-25 Sub Area Plan, which calls for L-M-N zoning, has not yet been considered by the Planning and Zoning Board nor adopted by the City Council. Since the Structure Plan Map presently indicates "Rural Open Lands/Stream Corridor and Employment," an amendment is necessary as a part of this annexation and zoning request. Please note that the Structure Plan Map also designates I-25 as a "Special Study Corridor. " This indicates that the 1997 version of the Structure Plan did not provide sufficient guidance for land use decision -making and that future land use considerations were anticipated. Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code allows a zoning request to be justified if the proposed request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. (The Structure Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan.) According to Council Resolution 2000-140, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment may be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: • The existing City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and The proposed major plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City and the elements thereof. Based on the progress of the Draft I-25 Sub Area Plan, there is sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Resolution 2000-140 and support an Amendment to the City's Structure Plan Map, an element of the Comprehensive Plan. J DATE ITEM NUMBER: South: Galatia Annexation (1990). The parcel gains the necessary one -sixth contiguity along the south property line. Of the total perimeter boundary, the parcel has 36.47% contiguity with the city limits. This substantially exceeds the required minimum of 16.66% (one -sixth). The parcel, therefore, complies with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement — Growth Management Area and is eligible for annexation. The site is located within the I-25 Regional Plan and the I-25 Sub Area Plan. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: County — Commercial, FA-1, Multi -Family; Partially developed commercial (Interchange Business Park) and residential (Sunflower Subdivision) S: City —Industrial and Urban Estate; Vacant (Galatia Annexation, 230 acres, includes 100-acre Poudre School District property) E: County — R-1; Residential (Clydesdale Park Subdivision) W: County — Commercial; (West of I-25 — a variety of commercial uses) Zoning: The proposed zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. This district is intended to be a setting for a wide range of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this district shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. I-25 Regional Communities Corridor Plan and I-25 Sub Area Plan: The parcel is located within the area identified as the I-25 Regional Communities Corridor Plan, adopted by City Council in November of 2001. In addition, the parcel is located within a subset of this Corridor Plan known as the 1-25 Sub Area Plan. The I-25 Sub Area Plan is in Final Draft stage and is scheduled for Council consideration on May 6, 2003. While it may seem premature to consider an annexation and zoning request prior to adoption of the applicable Sub Area Plan, significant input was provided by Council on the fundamental aspects of the Sub Area Plan at Council's August 27, 2002 study session. (A summary of this study session is attached.) Council's input was clear that the I-25 Sub Area Plan shall proceed. With respect to the subject property, Council agreed with the basic parameters of the Plan characterized by the following provisions: Urban densities are expected within one-half mile of either side of State AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-D DATE: February 18, 2003 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM: Ted Shepard SUBJECT: Items Relating to the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 2003-024 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Resolution 2003-025 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2003, Annexing Property Known as the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2003, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 47.15 acres in size. The site is located on the east side of the I-25 East Frontage Road approximately one -quarter mile south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Galatia Annexation (230 acres). The recommended zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. An Amendment to the Structure Plan Map is also recommended. The Ordinance contains a provision to preserve the 100-year floodplain along Boxelder Creek as defined and mapped by F.E.M.A. ACKGROUND: The property is located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property gains contiguity by the following parcel: