Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOEL ANNEXATION & ZONING - 58-87, A - REPORTS - INITIATING RESOLUTIONAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Items Related to the Noel Annexation and Zoning. RECOMMENDATION: ITEM NUMBER: 19 DATE: January 3, 1989 STAFF: Ken Waido Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the annexation and requested zonings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 89- 3 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Noel Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 6 , 1989 Annexing Approximately 287.5 Acres Known as the Noel Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 7 , 1989 Zoning Approximately 100.0 Acres of the Noel Annexation into the R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential District and Approximately 187.5 Acres into the R-F Foothills Residential District. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 287.5525 acres located west of Overland Trail and north of West Prospect Road (extended). Approximately 4.6123 acres of the annexation is owned by the City of Fort Collins and is the location of a water storage tank. The requested zoning is in two parts: 1) 187.5420 acres of R-F Foothills Residential for the western portion of the property; and 2) 100.0105 acres of R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential for the eastern portion of the property; and is further conditioned by specific d?nsity and design conditions contained in an Annexation Agreement. The property is presently undeveloped. This is a voluntary annexation. APPLICANT: Gefroh-Hattman Inc. OWNERS: Wallace Noel 135 West Swallow Rd. 253 Grey Rock Rd. Fort Collins, CO Laporte, CO City of Fort Collins DATE: January 3, 1989 W -2- ITEM NUMBER: 19 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Gefroh-Hattman Inc., on behalf of the owner, Wallace Noel, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 287.5525 acres located west of Overland Trail and north of West Prospect Road (extended). Approximately 4.6123 acres of the annexation is owned by the City of Fort Collins and is the location of a water storage tank. The requested zoning is in two parts: 1) 187.5420 acres of R-F Foothills Residential for the western portion of the property; and 2) 100.0105 acres of R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential for the eastern portion of the property. The property is presently undeveloped. This is a voluntary annexation which also contains a proposed Annexation Agreement outlining several total dwelling unit and land development restrictions. The owner's reasons for requesting this annexation and Annexation Agreement are outlined in the attached September 29, 1988, letter from the applicant. A copy of the proposed Annexation Agreement is also attached. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 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, the City will annex property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Overland Trail Annexation to the east and the Second and Third Foothills Annexations to the south. Zonings: The Noel Annexation was first submitted to the City for formal review in September 1987. The annexation application at that time requested the following zonings: 1) 267.702 acres of R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential; and 2) 19.8505 acres of B-P Planned Business. Staff began discussions with the applicant concerning the requested zonings. In staff's interpretation, the requests for R-L-P and B-P zoning departed from the foothills policies. After several months of discussion, the applicant requested an informal meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board to discuss potential alternative zoning requests. A special work session of the Board was held on March 9, 1988, to discuss the request. Staff presented a history of the development of the foothills policies and the applicant made a presentation justifying the annexation's zoning requests. After discussing the issue of the zoning requests, the Board indicated that it believed that the foothills policies would not support the R-L-P and B-P zoning requests, as presented. The present application for annexation proposes original zoning for the property in two parts: 1) 187.5420 acres for R-F, Foothills Residential zone for the western portion of the property; and 2) 100.0105 acres of R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential zone for the eastern portion of the property. The R-F District designation is for low density residential areas located near the foothills. The R-L-P District designation is for areas planned as a unit to provide variation in use, density and building placement. The owner would like to develop the property with predominantly detached single-family residential units. However, due to adjacent • DATE: January 3, 1989 7 -3- �fEM NUMBER: 19 multi -family developments along the property's southeastern boundary, the owner would like the option to develop patio homes in no more than duplex configurations per structure as a buffer to the proposed single-family areas. The primary criteria for evaluating a zoning request is its compliance with the officially adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the elements of the Comprehensive Plan lack specific guidance, zoning requests can be justified through several general welfare considerations such as: availability of adequate transportation, educational, utilities and other facilities to accommodate the uses permitted in the zone; the need in the vicinity and/or community as a whole for additional land of the zone; changing conditions in the surrounding area; and the evaluation of impacts of the zone upon the immediate neighborhood or area. Another alternative available is to modify or change the policies of the Comprehensive Plan or the geographic area to which the policies would apply. If policies are successfully changed or applicable boundaries modified, the zoning request can then be favorably considered. The requested zoning districts of this annexation again raise the issue of land uses near the foothills. Specifically, the request asks the City for a determination as to where the boundary of the foothills policies lies. Staff believes that properties west of Overland Trail should be reviewed on a case -by -case basis for conformity with foothills policies. This case -by -case evaluation is similar to the case -by -case evaluation the City provides within the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM development review process. The case -by -case evaluation must take into account existing adjacent uses and unique property attributes which may indicate land use and design options available for the development of the property while still adhering to the foothills area's goals, objectives and policies. In some cases for properties located west of Overland Trail, special annexation agreements and/or design conditions will be necessary to protect public aesthetic and open space interests. An example of a case -by -case approach to the implementation of the foothills policies was the Overland Hills Annexation (Case #29-86, A). The applicant requested annexation of 83.54 acres, located west of Taft Hill Road and south of Horsetooth Road (extended), to be zoned 19.37 acres in the R-L-P district and 57.58 acres in the R-F district. The annexation was in an area for a possible relocation of Overland Trail, i.e., the potential relocation split the property. In recommending approval of the zoning requests staff stated, "Staff supports the applicant's request for these zoning designations feeling that Overland Trail can make a clear break between urban development to the east and lower density residential development to the west." The Overland Hills Annexation and requested zonings were approved by the City Council in October 1987 (see attached map). The Noel Annexation request is, thus, another property specific case -by -case evaluation. Staff believes, based on the property owner's willingness to place land use, density and development design conditions on the property, as indicated in the summary of the annexation agreement below, that the foothills goals, objectives and policies will be achieved. The owner is sensitive to the City's policy of preserving the foothills in their natural environmental setting. The owner has proposed, in his DATE: January 3, 1989 �' -4- 1 ITEM NUMBER: 19 September 29, 1988 letter, to donate approximately 120 acres located above the 5200-foot elevation line to the City for open space purposes. Although the owner insists on making this offer, it must be understood that zoning decisions must be made based on sound principles of the City's Comprehensive Plan and not based on an offer by an applicant to dedicate land to the City as a gift. Further, there must be no requirement of a donation imposed upon the developer. In addition to annexation, the other issue before the Council is what is the appropriate zoning classification(s) for the property. The owner has proposed an Annexation Agreement outlining the density and development conditions he is willing to accept (see attached Annexation Agreement) subject to the property being placed in the R-L-P and R-F zones. In summary the conditions contained in the Annexation Agreement are: 1. Approval of the requested zoning districts. 2. No commercial or other non-residential development. 3. Only detached single-family residential units and some patio homes (to be determined) located near existing adjacent multi -family development to the south. 4. Maximum total of 587 residential units. This number is not guaranteed but is dependent upon City approvals through the LDGS. 5. All development proposals will be subject to site plan reviews. 6. No development above the 5200-foot contour line. 7. The maximum height of any structure will be thirty (30) feet. The property under consideration for annexation has some unique aspects which may require broader interpretation of the boundaries and foothills policies in relationship to the requested zonings. Adjacent to the property are several developments of "urban" character. Multi -family residential development is located to the south and the Colorado State University Equine Center and Foothills Campus is located to the north. These developments suggest a "line" other than Overland Trail might be appropriate to delineate the area of applicability of the foothills policies. An Historical Background report on the development of the foothills policies is attached to this memorandum. Findings 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA. 2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The attached Resolution accepts the annexation petition and determines that the petition is in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiates the annexation process for this property by establishing the -5- date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Public hearing and second reading of the Ordinances annexing and setting original zoning on the property. These will be considered by the City Council on February 7, 1989. 4. Staff believes that properties west of Overland Trail should be reviewed on a case -by -case basis for conformity with foothills policies. This case by -case evaluation must also take into account existing adjacent uses and unique property attributes which may indicate land use and design options available for the development of the property while still adhering to the foothills area's goals, objectives, and policies. In some cases, special annexation agreements and/or design conditions will be necessary to protect public aesthetic and open space interests. 5. The requested zonings are the major consideration. The R-F zone request is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The R-L-P zoning request asks the City to determine the appropriate "line" as to where the foothills policies begin to apply. Staff believes that the density and development related conditions of the Annexation Agreement protect the goals, objectives and policies the City's Comprehensive Plan for the foothills area and that the boundary line for the foothills property should be located approximately 2,100 feet west of the centerline of Overland Trail. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting of November 21, 1988, voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the requested annexation and zonings. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. Two letters commenting on the proposed Noel Annexation and Zoning were received by the Planning and Zoning Board, one from Colorado State University and one from Mr. Alvin L. Miller. Copies of these letters are attached. RESOLUTION 89- 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE NOEL ANNEXATION WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, was heretofore filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Noel Annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Noel Annexation, more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A tract of land situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to -wit: A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado which considering the East line of the South 1/2 of said Section 17 as bearing S 00131' W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Southeast corner of said Section 17 and run thence S 85*30' W 2652.08 feet to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence S 84*59' W 2740.32 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 17; thence N 00*38' E 2647.39 feet to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence N 85020'55" E 2733.98 feet to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence along the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17 S 00°31'55" W 597.50 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 2501.96 feet; thence S 00*31' W 50.00 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 120.20 feet; thence N 00*31' E 236.10 feet; thence N 85'20'55" E 30.00 feet to the East line of the said South 1/2; thence along said East line S 00*31' W 2225.00 feet to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the following described tract: Begin at the Southeast corner of said Section 17 and run thence N 00*31' E 1149.03 feet; thence S 85°14'18" W 3795.61 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 385.10 feet; thence S 85°14'18" W 330.00 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 14.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence S 61°34'37" W 100.00 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 200.00 feet; thence N 61°34'37" E 200.00 feet; thence S 28°25'23" E 200.00 feet; thence S 61034'37" W 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning. The above described tract contains 287.5525 acres more or less. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition and accompanying map are in SLIW:Lantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act, and desires to initiate annexation • 0 0 proceedings in accordance with law. Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto be adopted as a part of this Resolution. Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage of an annexation ordinance pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal Annexation Act. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 3rd day of January, A.D. 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • • 0 L� • NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Noel Annexation, said Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice. That, on February 7, 1989, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may desire. Dated this 3rd day of January, A.D. 1989. City Clerk • 0 ORDINANCE NO. 6, 1989 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE NOEL ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 89-3, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has found and determined and does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins to annex the subject 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 situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to -wit: A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado which considering the East line of the South 1/2 of said Section 17 as bearing S 00*31' W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Southeast corner of said Section 17 and run thence S 85*30' W 2652.08 feet to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence S 84*59' W 2740.32 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 17; thence N 00*38' E 2647.39 feet to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence N 85°20'55" E 2733.98 feet to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence along the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17 S 00°31'55" W 597.50 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 2501.96 feet; thence S 00*31' W 50.00 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 120.20 feet; thence N 00*31' E 236.10 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 30.00 feet to the East line of the said South 1/2; thence along said East line S 00*31' W 2225.00 feet to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the following described tract: Begin at the Southeast corner of said Section 17 and run thence N 00(31' E 1149.03 feet; thence S 85°14'18" W 3795.61 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 385.10 feet; thence S 85°14'18" W 330.00 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 14.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence S 61°34'37" W 100.00 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 200.00 feet; thence N 61'34'37" E 200.00 feet; thence S 28°25'23" E 200.00 feet; thence S 61°34'37" W 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning. The above described tract contains 287.5525 acres more or less. be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Noel Annexation. • • 11 Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City of Fort Collins, the City of Fort Collins 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 of Fort Collins. Section 3. That the City of Fort Collins 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. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of January, A.D. 1989, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 1989. ayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 7th day of February, A.D. 1989. • ATTEST: City Clerk 0 Mayor 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. 7 , 1989 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE NOEL ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning District Map adopted by Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by including a portion of the property known as the Noel Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential District, said portion described as follows: A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the East line of the South 1/2 of said Section 17 as bearing S 00°31' W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Southeast corner of said Section 17 and run thence S 85°30' W 2148.11 feet along the South line of the said South 1/2; thence N 00*31' E 2033.19 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 1998.42 feet; thence S 00°31' W 50.00 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 120.20 feet; thence N 00°31' E 236.10 feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 30.00 feet to a point on the Eastline of the said South 1/2; thence S 00*31' W 2225.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 100.0105 acres more or less. Section 2. That the Zoning District Map adopted by Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by including the remaining portion of the property known as the Noel Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the R-F, Foothills Residential District, said portion described as follows: A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the East line of the South 1/2 of said Section 17 as bearing S 00°31' W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on the South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 17, which bears S 85°30' W 2148.11 feet from the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 17, and run thence S 85*30' W 503.97 feet along the South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 17 to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence S 84"59' W 2740.32 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 17; thence N 00*38' E 2647.39 feet to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence N 85°20'55" E 2733.98 feet to the center 1/4 corner of said Section 17; thence S 00°31'55" W 597.50 . feet; thence N 85°20'55" E 503.54 feet; thence S 00031' W 2033.19 feet to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the following described tract: begin at the Southeast corner of said Section 17 and run thence N 00*31' E 1149.03 feet; thence S 85014'18" W 3795.61 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 385.10 feet; thence S 85014'18" W 330.00 feet; thence N 28°25'23" W 14.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence S 61°34'37" W 100.00 feet; thence N 2802523" W 200.00 feet; thence N 61034'37" E 200.00 feet; thence S 28025'23" E 200.00 feet; thence S 61°34'37" W 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning. The above described tract exclusive of the exception contains 187.5420 acres more or less. Section 3. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning District Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Section 4. That the following zoning conditions shall apply to the properties being zoned hereby: a. No commercial or other non-residential development will be allowed on the properties. b. Only detached single-family residential units and patio homes in a duplex configuration will be allowed on the properties, i.e., no multi -family (3 units or more per structure) residential development will be allowed on the properties. Patio home development is further limited to the areas of the property • adjacent to existing multi -family development to the south of the properties. c. The total maximum number of residential units allowed on the properties is 587 units. This number of units is not a guaranteed density. The number of units eventually allowed on the properties is subject to development review processes conducted by the City. d. All development proposals for the properties shall be subject to site plan reviews through the various department review processes of the City. e. No development on the properties shall extend above the 5200-foot contour line. f. The maximum height of any structure built on the properties shall be thirty (30) feet. �J • Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered • published this 3rd day of January, A.D. 1989, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Cler Passed and adopted on final reading this 7th day of February, A.D. .;. ayor ATTEST: ity Cler • :� a: GEFROH HATTMAN INC. ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT December 12, 1988 135 west Swallow Road Fort Collins. CO 80525 Mayor Ed Stoner (303) 223-7335 Assistant Mayor Bob Winokur Council Members: Larry Estrada Jerry Horak Susan Kirkpatrick Chuck Mabry Loren Maxey Fort Collins City Council P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On January 3, 1989, you will be reviewing the proposed Noel annexation. This annexation consists of 287 acres locates in the Foothills' zone west of Overland Trail. The annexation proposal has been a subject of discussion with Staff for sometime. The proposal is submitted with full "staff" recommendation of approval and it is with their support that we proceed. The following is an outline of the perimeters we intend to present in detail at the City Council meeting: I. It is our belief that the Foothills' zone boundaries include lands located west of Overland Trail which are not a part of the actual Foot- hills. It is our contention that the Foothills start at an elevation higher than that defined by Overland Trail. 2. We believe that the Foothills' Policy is not separate or exempt from the overall land use policy plan adopted in 1979. The land use plan is the overriding planning tool adopted by this City. The policies defined in the comprehensive plan are sound and factual and have a bearing on economic conditions. 3. Within the proposal are lands which the City has defined as property to be purchased as a part of their open space program. These lands, con- sisting of approximately 132 acres, are proposed as permanent open space without the City having to purchase it. We look forward to your support and appreciate your attention to this an- nexation request. Respectfully, J me rnt resi k m • 0 September 29, 1988 Mr. Ken Waido Planning & Development City of Fort Collins Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: NOEL ANNEXATION FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Dear Mr. Waido: This letter will serve as our ation regarding the 287± acre Trail in Fort Collins. GEFROH HATTMAN INC. ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 135 West Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 (303) 223-7335 reintroduction of the Petition for Annex - Noel property located west of Overland If you recall, the original petition was submitted on September 1, 1987. Since that time the petition has been on hold pending discussions with City Staff. On March 9, 1988, we had an informal work session with the Planning and Zoning Board outlining the request for annexation. In an effort to move the project forward on a positive note, Mr. Wallace Noel has met with numerous Planning Staff members, Linda Hopkins, Mike Davis, and Steve Burkett, City Manager, outlining a proposal to the City for annexation and land donation. At our most recent meetings, Linda Hopkins, Mike Davis and Steve Burkett voiced their approval and support for our new proposal, and that they would recommer:d that Staff support our annexation/donation concept. Simply, the proposal is as Follows: The entire property comprised of approximately 287 acres lies west of Overland Trail and is within the area depicted as the Foothills' zone and the Urban Growth Area. This zone as adopted allows a maximum of one unit/acre on a clustered basis or 21 acre lots without clustering on the entire property including above 5200 elevation. It is the intention of the owner, Mr. Noel, to request annexation based on an agreement between the City and Mr. Noel whereby Mr. Noel would deed over to the City some approximately 126± acres to be zoned RF in exchange for allowing a portion of the remaining property, approximatley 100± acres to develop under the foremat of the Land Development Guidance System with the underlying zoning of RLP. The petition and enclosed diagram define the area to be zoned RF, RLP, and that which is to be donated. We propose that the lower 100 acres be zoned RLP and the remaining 187± acres zoned RF. The uppermost area of this RF zoned property, approximately 126 acres, would be donated to the City and Mr. Ken Waido September 29, 1988 Page 2 its allowable densities transferred down to the remaining 61 acres zoned RF. There are numerous reasons for support of this exchange: First and foremost, the City has defined the property to be donated as significant open space and of prime importance to the City's open space policies. In fact, the property is defined as a parcel that the City should seek to purchase. It is obvious that a donation would save the City and its taxpayers countless dollars -- monies which would be available for other open space acquisitions. 2. The surrounding existing land uses indicate that this parcel lies be- tween extremely concentrated existing uses. To the South lies 16 unit/acre multi -family uses, to the West lies existing urban uses ranging from four units/acre to 12 units/acre, and to the North lies the existing Colorado State University Equine Center, a major commer- cial facility. 3. Reasonable urban densities (RLP) are appropriate and necessary to off- set development costs, namely streets and utilities required to meet urban standards. The costs of serving properties with gas, telephone, sewer and water can only be offset with appropriate densities. Econ- omic viability while not a primary concern of the City is the major factor in any development. The opportunity to offer a product com- petitively with other developments serves to ensure that the City will receive its payback through permits and fees for providing basic ser- vices. 4. In its Master Traffic Plan, the City has defined Overland Trail as a major arterial. With urban -type development occuring only on the east side of Overland Trail, it is hard to believe that adequate revenues from street oversizing fees could be collected to cover the cost of street improvements . Lack of development on its west side would put an undue burden for street improvements for those properties lying to the East as well as City taxpayers who ultimately will make up the difference. City streets should not be mandated as the separation between urban and rural developments. Rather land use densities should gradually decrease as you move away from City streets. 5. It should be noted that the College, Colorado State University, retains ownership of much of the surrounding property. The City has little, if any,control over how CSU develops its property. The City may initiate control and tie the hands of private development as it may feel appro- priate, but they could not control development should this property come under the ownership of Colorado State University. Nor is the College required to help pay for City streets or services. This is evidenced by the Equine Center which did not receive any City approvals or improve- ments to Overland Trail. • 0 • . Mr. Ken Waido September 29, 1988 Page 3 6. Both the City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District have scarred the property with the construction of unsightly water towers above the 5200 elevation. I dare say that the development of housing at those elevations would have proven to be more visually pleasing than the towers that exist. It should be noted, however, that we support the idea of preserving the upper portion of this property as open space and are willing to do so with this proposal. 7. If the City is truly concerned about visually controlling the Foothills, it should support urban lot -development at a 4 unit/acre density rather than allowing the potential for 21 acre lots to develop. One only needs to look around the City at existing large acreage developments to see the visual blight caused by so-called ''horse ranchette'' sites. The erosion from overgrazing, unsightly barns, rundown fencing and weed growth be- cause the homeowner cannot effectively control watering or grass on large lots are obvious. Just imagine the visual mess with ranchettes littering the Foothills. To summarize, we offer the City the opportunity to receive permanent open space without a burden to taxpayers and also an opportunity for the City to receive efficient paybacks through fee and permits by allowing reason- able urban densities. It is our intention and desire to be heard at the October meeting of the is Planning and Zoning Board to bring this matter forward as soon as possible. Respectfully, G FROH HATTMAN INC James A. Gefroh Pres'dent am enc. cc: Steve Burkett Mike Davis Tim Hasler Linda Hopkins Wallace Noel • 11 0 • • itv or orr,-Gilins • • ::e-e!c —mer1, --117VI LeS cfice e: :he i:irectnr October 12, 1988 Mr. Wallace Noel 253 Gray Rock Road LaPorte, CO 80535 Dear Mr. Noel: This is in response to Gefroh, President, Gefroh City Planning Department meeting between you and attended, it was agreed tl Gefroh, to be in a positi and Zoning Board on Oct November. a September 21, 1988 letter from Mr. James A. Hatt:man, Inc. addressed to Mr. Ken Waido of the concerning the Noel Annexation. As a result of a staff of the Planning Department, at which I at staff would work with your representative, Mr. on to present your proposal to the City Planning Ober 21, 1988 with possible Council action in As discussed and agreed at the meeting, staff would draft an annexation agreement embodying safeguards mutually considered appropriate for the annexation and the setting of original zoning. If at the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board or immediately prior thereto, it should be decided by the Planning Director that the matter should be postponed to allow more time to prepare for the presentation, you and your representative would accept the decision to postpone and continue to work with staff to refine and improve the proposal. In a related matter, Mr. Gefroh indicated in his September 21, 1988 letter that the City Manager, Economic Development Administrator and Director of Development Services voiced approval and support for the new proposal, and would recommend that staff support the annexation/donation concept. We would like to clear the record on the meaning behind the expressions of support so that in the future, the positions taken by us at the meeting are not misconstrued or misrepresented. The concept you presented and the frustrations you have experienced over a number of years relative to the referenced property was understood and received both conceptual support and sympathy. It was and continues to be our belief that you are entitled to a fair and speedy hearing before appropriate approving bodies. To this end we indicated to you our objective to see this matter through to a proper and speedy conclusion. This does not mean nor was it intended to mean unqualified approval of the project. X0 LaPorte .Venue • P.O. Boy ;ti0 • Fort Collins, CO S0522-0380 • (303) 221-6o01 In concept your prepesal is logical and reasonable. ' � The City s statea objective is to preserve the foothills above the 5200 foot elevation. Your proposal would accormlish this goal if accepted by the City Council afte_ review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board. The amount of density belo*,r the 5200 elevation ;%ras discussed with no definitive conclusion reached other :han the Land Development Guidance System seemed to be the logical and host protective approach to be taken. However, the Foothills Policy precludes the application of this particular development process. To allow the LDGS to apply to the area below the 5200 foot elevation would require that parts of your property during annexation and original zoning be placed in the RLP zoning category as opposed to the RF zone as called for in the Foothills Policy. The final decision rest with the City Council. The first test of your proposal will come from the Planning and Zoning Board. We did not nor can we guarantee the outcome of this public hearing and decision making process. Our objective at the meeting was not to indicate unqualified support for Your proposal. It was to better understand what you were proposing to the City and how an answer could be expedited, recognizing the outcome could be either contrary to or supportive of your interests and expectations. We trust this adequately expresses our position in this regard. Sincerely, • XJos M. Davis arector of Development Services cc: City Manager Director of Planning Economic Development Administrator 0 • oaaa4 • • ATTACHMENT B TO THE PETITION FOR THE NOEL ANNEXATION ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") dated as of 1988, is between MR. WALLACE NOEL ("Owner"), and THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Colorado municipal corpora- tion ("City"). RECITALS A. The Owner owns approximately 287 acres of land along Overland Trail on the western boundary of and adjacent to the City which land is more partic- ularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). The prop- erty is presently vacant and undeveloped. B. The Owner desires to annex the Property and the City desires the property to be annexed. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein con- tained, the parties agree as follows: I. Annexation. The owner has petitioned the City for annexation of the • property. The annexation will become effective upon final approval by the City Council, recording of the annexation plat and annexation ordinance with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and the execution and recording of this Agreement. '. Applicability of Agreement. If the City approves the annexation of the Property, such annexation shall be subject to the provisions of this Agree- ment. 3. Zoning. Upon annexation, the City staff will recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council that an ordinance zoning approxi- mately 100 acres of the eastern portion of the Property in the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning District as defined in the City Code and approximately 187.5 acres of the western portion of the Property in the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning District as defined in the City Code be duly considered and properly enacted. It is acknowledged by the Owner that the aforesaid zoning designations are appropriate for the Property. The Owner acknowledges that the City Council makes the final decision with regard to zoning and is not bound to zone the Property in accordance with the aforementioned zones. It is also understood between the parties that subsequent zoning of the property is a legislative act and that the City Council is not bound by the terms of this Agreement to continue the afore- said zoning upon a portion of the Property in perpetuity. 4. Compliance with ordinances. The Owner will comply with all ordinances, criteria, resolutions and policies of the City as now exist or are amended • or adopted in the future, including those related to the development and zoning of the Property, except as expressly modified by this Agreement. 5. Non-residential development. No commercial or other non-residential development will be allowed on the Property. 6. Single-family and patio homes. Only detached single-family residential units and patio homes in a duplex configuration will be allowed on the Property, ie. no multi -family (3-units or more per structure) residential development will allowed on the portions of the Property. Patio home devel- opment is further limited to the areas of the property adjacent to existing multi -family development to the south of the Property. 7. Maximum number of units. The total maximum number of residential units allowed on the Property is 587 units. This number of units is not a guar- anteed density. The number of units eventually allowed on the Property is subject to development review processes conducted by the City. 8. Review of development proposals. All development proposals for the Property shall be subject to site plan reviews through the various develop- ment review processes of the City. 9. Foothills protection. No development on the Property shall extend above the 5200 foot contour line. 10. Ruilding height. The maximum height of any structure built on the Property shall be thirty (30) feet. 11. Assigns. As used herein, the term "the Owner" shall also mean any of the transferees, successors or assigns of the Owner, and all such parties shall have the right to enforce this Agreement and shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement as if they were original parties hereto. I I Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue shall be in the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado. 13. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, and shall be a covenant running with the Property. 14. Headings. The headings set forth in this Agreement for the different sections of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be con- strued as an enlargement or an abridgement of the language of this Agree- ment. 15. Code Changes. References in this Agreement to any provisions of the City Code are intended to refer to any subsequent amendments and/or revi- sions to the City Code that replace the revisions referred to herein. Such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon the Owner. 16. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by subsequent writing of the parties, or their successors, transferees or assigns, provided that no such amendment shall be valid until all persons or entities having an interest in the Property subject to the amendment have duly executed such amendment agreement. 0 • 0 M M a ff 7 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the and year first above written. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation By: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager Attest: Wanda Krajicek City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: W. Paul Eckman Assistant City Attorney STATF. OF COL,ORADO ) SS. County of Larimer ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 , by Steven C. Burkett, City Manager, and Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk of the City of Fort Collins. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 0 � DpG^�ff4� WALLACE NOEL Property Owner Attest: STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. County of Larimer ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 by Wallace Noel. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: • • • 0 _0__ 22 cc: Council Mike Davis Tom Peterson Nov 2 4 1988 City of Ft. Collins Planning Board City Council City Manager Ladies and Gentlemen. November 21, 1988 RE: Wallace Noel Annexation West- Ft. Collins First I would like to address the RF Zoning proposed for a portion of the Noel Property. RF Zoning allows the clustering of Lots and a density of one unit per acre, plus horses and livestock. Has any- one really studied.this area? Large portions of it cannot be irrigated at all and most likely, when development starts, all irrigation shall have to cease. This means that you would be pasturing land that has 12 to 15 inches of natural rainfall and is extrememly fragile. In my opinion, it is extremely doubtful thn t more than a dozen horses could be maintained on a year around basis. Unless there are strict and enforceable regulations to monitor the ground cover use, much of the place would be totally destroyed and denuded of all vegetation with resulting blowing dirtL and horse manure. RF Zonig without these strict controls is without doubt an absolute and total disaster as far as good zoning. I would suggest that an environmental impact study be done to see how much livestock, if any, the area can carry, I thought the entire City concern was to preserve the foothills, not contribute to its destruction. City Regarding the eagarness the/has to obtain more open space: It appears to me that the City plunges ahead desiring to acquire more land but does not follow through with its attendant responsibilities. The City now owns about 200 acres West of our place and adjacent to the Noel property. Sections have been torn up by the Water Department over the past four years. Written promises were made that the ground would be revegitated and reseeded. About 90% of the revegitation has been nothing but weeds, which we promptly inherit from all westerly high winds. After 3 years of frustration we called the City Manager last year. The result of that conversation was that Virgil Taylor would monitor the situation every few weeks and clean the fence row as needed so as not to completely b-ry us with the City grown weeds. I have no doubt that this wads all well intended but it gradually gets lost in the adminstrative shuffle. After the high winds this fall we contacted Jeff Lowman, Virgil Taylor and finally Mike Powers. It took about 5 weeks of frustrating requests to finally get the City to clean their side of the fence of the weeds. 0 • The Water Departments aof-ess road has hecnme an art.iv? dng run and hikers trail to the open !;pace to the West. The Cpen :;iuice is an area compl,:tely out of control and is a No —Mans land or perhaps a better term would be it is l.veryone Land and without restrictions. The area is used by high speed dirt bike riders, uncontrolled dogs by the hundreds with or without their masters that seen to believe that anything West of Overland Trail., including the CSU Stadium grounds, Our place, and the City Open Area is totally i •ee of any restraints or obligations. It is fairly easy to understand why people may have this attitude. I know of not one sign to indicate what the rules are for the use and prservation of this ground. The Sherrif's department does not monitor this area and certainly the City does nothing, so who does? Absolutely NOBODY. Until the City adopts some policies to fence Private property, as they have on all of their other hiking trails and are able to monitor and control the areas they presently have, they should not attempt to acquire more. The density shift provision proposed for the Noel Annexation: The City has for over 11) ,years strongly- opposed development, and especially high density development, West of Overland Trail. This Opposition was due to air pollution and other concerns, and yet it would appear, if granted, that the City is willing to comprise all of their previous concerns for the enticing carrot. of Free Ground. If this density shift is abused to allow 300 to 500 units on this ground, it would only follow that,if Mr. Noel had another 200 acres to give the City, perhaps a 1000 units could be piled up West of Overland Trail. How Ludicrous. The Air pollution is not going to be on top of the ridges of the acquired Open Space, it will be, if at all, down on Overland Trail and further East. If the City is even remotely interested in such an abuse of the Density shift, it is totally unconscionable. If the City wants this Open Space and if they accept the obligations attendant thereto, fine. Let the City buy the ground and retain the lower density that they have so vehemently touted for the past 15 years. As most of you know, this area was restrainted to the point of allowing one unit per 35 acres, then approximately 12 acres per unit, and then down to approximately 2 acres per unit. Are we now considering, with this density shift gimmick, allowing a density of a few thousand square feet per unit? Just to obtain free land? I wonder how a Court would view such hanky—panky. After all of the gyrations, waffeling and bouncing around that the City policy has expressed the past 15 years, I believe it is about time for the City to come up with a consistant, stable, and workable policy to cover all oi- the problems of the Foothills area and Open Space in particular. We certainly have not had that in the past. We are not opposed to Mr. Noel. developing his property, but again lets not abandon all restraints for the chance of a Freebee. Lets have the City do the honorable thing, keep the density down and then buy the open space, if they can handle it properly. 4� 4/' �)/'a//z, • THE REST OF THE STORY: Mr. Smith, from the Water Department did call 11/9/ 88 and offered a ray of hope on part of the problems. He indicated they would try to better control their weecb and do some reseeding. He also indicated a willing ness to discuss fencing along the access road to control the uncontrolled ,.eople and dogs. Even if this is accomplished and has fulfilled the Water Dept. obligation there is still the entire West boundary of our place totally exposed. Parks and recreation Dept. haven't expressed that degree of cooperation. We shall see what happens? TO BE CONTINUED. • 0 • M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 11, 1988 W10 '4PPioe University Office of VIce President for ,Administration Fo" (Alins, Cblondo 90523 (30) 414I-3_37 TO: P. Austin, H. Baker, T. Grip, J. Voss and K. Waido FROM: Linda Wardlow SUBJECT: ATTACHED LETTER ON NOEL ANNEXATION CASE #58-87A A personal copy of the attached letter was sent to each member of the City Planning and Zoning Board listed on the attached sheet. LAW/em cc: B. Burnham 0 .7 0 • • November 11, 1988 ^Fl^ Dear ^F2^: SUBJECT: NOEL ANNEXATION CASE #58-87A Although it has been the general policy of the University not to comment on the issues brought before the City Planning and Zoning Board, I feel it is important to comment on the above subject annexation and zoning request. The University Foothills Research Campus is designed and used primarily for research purposes with a segregated area used for sports activity. The Campus consists of approximately 1700 acres extending 3.6 miles in a north -south direction on the west side of Overland Trail, much of which is devoted to large animal research. A conscientious effort has been made by the University to buffer the residential areas east of Overland Trail from the activities carried on within the campus by such means as the location of public buildings (Equine Center) and the planting and maintenance of extensive landscaping along Overland Trail. It should be noted however that the maintenance of vegetation within the campus is not possible where large animals are contained, thereby subjecting certain areas to possible less -than -desirable air quality during periods of high wind. Permitting urban density residential development adjacent to the existing public access activities (Equine Center), large animal and beagle colony areas cannot be considered in the best long-term interests of the future residents. High intensity public activities, animal waste odors, blowing dust, noise, and seasonal insect infestations all will negatively impact encroaching residential developments. The University's planning assumptions for future development on the Foothills Campus are based upon the following concepts: 0 Page 2. • o The Foothills lands are a finite University resource and should be buffered against the impact of ur encroachment. o Acquisition of contiguous lands for buffering purposes should be a priority. The concept of contiguous '_and trades or trades of services is recommended as opposed to selling land. o Infrastructure should be located in dedicated corridcrs to permit separation and isolation of non -compatible activities. o Maintain flexible outdoor research facilities and recognize the need for areas dedicated to isolation, intensive use and public use. In conclusion, I would submit that annexation and urban density residential zoning would not be compatible with existing land uses and would have a significant negative impact upon the environment of the foothills areas. Be assured that Colorado State strives to be a good, corporate • neighbor and appreciates the opportunity to participate in the adjacent neighborhood commenting process. Sincerely, R.H. Burnham Director of Facilities Planning RHB/law cc: P. Austin H. Baker T. Grip J. Voss K. Waido 0 0 • • Planning anti �c„'_::x 3oard City of Fort Collins Planning Department P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 221-6750 Laurie O'Dell Chair David Edwards Sanford Kern Lloyd Walker Frank Croznik Jim Klataske Jan Shepard • the needs of REA as well as other property owners in the area to the extent possible. This signal, coupled with the planned recirculation system, met the needs )f the neighborhood. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the State Access Code did not allow the City nor the State to grant any guarantees of access to REA. He stated that REA will continue to have the same curb cuts as long as the current use continued. Jlcmbcr Klataske asked if there was room for a frontage type road from Ken- sington to Harmony, so motorists could turn off onto Kensington and continue south on that road. Mr. Ensdorff answered that Staff would like that option to ultimately happen in some configuration. He stated that if it could be worked out among the property owners, he would not be opposed. Member Groznik moved to approve the South College Access Plan with the hopes that the staff would continue to work with property owners during the interim and reminded the property owners to work on their own to provide alternative access solutions. Member Kern seconded. The motion carried 7-0. NOEL. ANNEXATION Member Edwards removed himself due to a conflict. • Ken Waido gave the staff report. He stated that this was a request to annex and zone approximately 287.5 acres, located west of Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road extended. The requested zoning was in two parts, the first being R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential of a hundred acres located on the eastern portion of the property, the remainder of the property, 187.5 acres, is requesting a zoning R-F, Foothills Residential District. Jim Gefroh, representing the owner, stated that there were 287 acres total. The request was for 100 acres running north and south along Overland Trail to be a RLP zone. He said there was a vertical elevation change within this RLP zone of approximately 60'. He stated that the ground slopes gradually from Overland Trail up to the westerly portion of that property, roughly 60'. The second portion of the property was divided into 3 sections, one being a 55 acre chunk that goes midway north and south across the property. The applicant requested a RF zone on this portion. It also had an elevation change of roughly 35'. He pointed out the 3 areas for the requested zoning. The proposals were based on the elevations of the property and perception of foothills. He stated that the land was vacant except for 2 water tanks and a house and outbuildings. He pointed out that the Equine Center was to the north; corrals and research buildings were located on the westerly portion, to the east of the property, there were low to medium density single family and multi family homes from 3-8 units per acres, and to the south was a concentrated multi -family which goes as high as 16 unites per acre, as well a single family structures, and CSU . Stadium. He stated there was rather intense surrounding land uses given the so-called rural nature of the lands on the west side of Overland Trail. He said the entire property was presently within the Foothills Residential Zone, an inflexible zone which was not a part of the L.D.G.S. It allowed 2.29 acres per unit to I unit per acre under a cluster approach. The zone used a site plan process rather than a PUD review. He believed this zone lacked insight and sensitivity to the elevation changes and surrounding land uses. He stated that the zone identifies Overland Trail as the dividing line for what was perceived as the "foothills". He did not believe that was a true interpretation of what the foothills were meant to be. He did not think Of the foothills. that anyone looked at He said that Overland Trail as being the beginning Overland Trail, it when you was not foothills, but looked at the terrain, directly west of similar side of Overland. keeping Looking to the west, to the property on we find property the east with what which we, the population of which was Fort Collins, more in was more Rockies. He specifically, the Dakota e Hogback and furtheraback, said to a 5,200 mark given the foothills line and that the of being, what they believe, thethethillstrue as closer therefore, the applicants surrounding land uses were urban in were justified in use and property be zoned R-I.-P. requesting that the lower (elevation) The applicants agreed with staff that the upper portion be zoned RE Stated that overriding the annexation request, was the annexation agreementt, which would set the basic format as to how the deve the property. In sulopment would occur on mmary, he stated if the conditions in the agreement were; to achieve approval of the requested densities and zoning; not have any commercial or non-residential development on the property; and only single family residential units and some patio homes located near the existing and adjacent multi -family development to thesouth would occur. He stated they would limit entire number of units on the entire 287 acres to a maximum of 587 residential units, subject to site plan review and Board approval. He further stated no development would occur at the 5,200 contour line and maximum height of any structure would be 30'. The last item in the agreement stated that the number of units would be those submitted and approved. It was their contention to have the along Overland Trail and less density as one a greatest density stated that the uppermost pproached the 5,200 level. He housing at all, and will Portion n of the property would not contain any Permanent part of the open space. He said the 132 units would be on the RLp which would allow up to 532 units pr n that zone. 's The r 55 acresowould dcontain the remaining 55 units, which would be developed in cluster basis, as required in the RF zone. He said that virtually all the land use policies from 1979, type of development the pertained to the the downtown and services pthanswere most t development ated the eiinp hen south. wasto eesaid the property was in close proximity to central business district, CSU and being equal distance north and south to major employment areas within Fort Collins. 0 • It was an ideal location for single family development. He noted the location of recreational areas and shopping areas and their relation to the proposed development. The City land use policies suggest that the cost of services was directly related to the number of units on a development. Three or more units per acre for effective installation of public services were arranged. He believed that the foothills policy ignored this fact, with the average dwelling units per acre at 2, L;;,uw the City's average. They also believed that the City should be concerned with costs of services, operations and paybacks. Density was important to ensure these paybacks. He said the proposed density increases the payback to the City by $2.2 million, without any increase to the City's services expense, as the same utilities were required whether a one unit per acre or a two unit. He noted these figures did not include telephone, gas or cable t.v. installation paybacks. He stated that rural density development was usually at one or less units per acre and shall not be allowed in the UGA. He stated the RF zone allowed for a basic density of 2.29 acres per unit and I unit per acre in a cluster development. He believed these densities were in clear violation of the land use chapter regarding cost efficient provisional services. He further noted from the land use policies plan, Policy 14, that urban development standards will apply to all development within the UGA, including all improvements. Ha pointed nut. that in Policy .15. the provision of these elements could only be cost efficient for the developer and the City providing proper densities are achieved. In Policy 19, he stated the City shall establish a project impact assessment system as a growth management tool which would cover environmental impacts, social impacts, economic impacts and impacts on services and facilities. He said the LDGS was deemed inappropri- itc tool for the foothills area, yet was the systc n whereby all other land in the City were evaluated. He believed the City had turned its back on the most innovative tool for evaluating project proposals and have chosen an inflexible zone system that doesn't take into account the surrounding land uses or elevation changes or topography. Citing subsequent policies, he pointed out the references to providing open space/recreational areas and the applicant's wish to preserve to the city, at no cost to the city, an area of open space. He stated that urban development cannot bear the expenses of improvements to Overland Trail and the street should not divide urban and rural developments. He said that CSU does not participate in any city fees, street improvements or paybacks of any kind. He believed that without adequate development, Overland Trail would continue to suffer from neglect without proper development densities, improve- ment would lie with the taxpayers. He urged the Board to consider the impact of what the foothills zone does and allowing the influx of common sense to prevail in reviewing the changes in elevation and surrounding land uses when dealing with this area. He believed he was justified in requesting the RF zone in the lower portions of the property and were willing to enter into a very favorable annexation agreement for the city and look for the Board's support. Mr. Waido gave a slide presentation, pointing out the changes in elevation and surrounding topography and land uses. He stated the annexation was in the Urban Growth Area, contiguous, and was being pursued as a voluntary annexa- • tion. He said the two zones requested were RF and RLP. The property was one of' several properties looked at as foothills property over the past 10 years. In 1978, for instance, the city had no ability what so ever to provide water service west of Overland Trail, which caused various policy changes affecting this area_ He stated there were 5 large tracts of property looked at by the City and the County which were clustered together as foothills property and were eventually added into the UGA. He said each of these properties was essentially separate, each was unique not only in terms of location but also in surrounding uses. He said the application of a single policy to these properties may be difficult in the long run and in staff's analysis of this particular annexation, staff recognized that there were unique attributes to each of these five different parcels and they need to be review on a case by case basis and incorporating all the policies in the Land Use Policy Plan as well as those in the UGA agreement and other policy plans the City had adopted. He said that Staff analysis recognized land uses adjacent to the property which were not rural uses but urban uses, and a zoning district different than the RF Zone for this portion of land, was appropriate. He stated staff was recommending approval of the request as submitted, however, believed there were several concerns which staff would like to have addressed before ultimate development occurred in the form of an annexation agreement. This agreement would be imple- mented in the same .fashion as the annexation agreement, as.was done by Ster- ling Company, and would outline what the conditions on the annexation would be and would be written as a part of the zoning ordinance for these properties that would apply along with the other code provisions. He further stated that the property was in the UGA, eligible for annexation and that the zoning and zoning conditions would help achieve the foothills objectives. Rex Miller, an adjoining property owner, stated he owned land directly south of the project site. He found staff's position difficult to understand, since Mr. Waldo was the "father" of the RF Zone. He stated he attended quite a few meetings beginning in 1986 with Mr. Waido, meetings which presented the rationale for moving the UGA off of Overland Trail to incorporate this ground to control this property. To his knowledge, the characteristics surrounding this property have not changed, same multi -family, same CSU uses were all existing, so nothing had changed. In 1980, this property was zoned to accommodate one unit per 35 acres, in 1982, this was changed to accommodate 1 unit per 2.29 acres and then in 1985, there was a subdivision proposed on a county level for this property, at which time, the owner was to dedicate one hundred and 20 odd acres of green space. He said the City denied this proposal which had a density of 130 units below the 5,200' parallel. This proposal offered the City 120 acres of green space and was then approved and again went back to the County and was approved. Since moving the UGA, the master plan was no longer appropriate, as it now needs to be reviewed by the City. He wondered why this project with 130 units was barely acceptable 2 years ago, was acceptable now with no changes in the area, making this property acceptable to 587 units. He stated the RF Zone designates I unit per acre and the proposed project had approximately 12,430 feet per house and believes that the notion that the top 130 acres somehow satisfies the overall requirement for open space for 587 houses was 0 pretty absurd. He said the 130 acres should not be considered in a density shift on this property, in fact, above the 5,200' one was above the Citv's latest «vatcr tank and they cannot provide services above that elevation, so the property was totally undevelopable. He believed that staff should stick to the RF zone. The property was a County project with 130 units, denied and now, the applicant proposed 500 units. He asked what had changed since 1986. He does not think the City should compromise this project in order to receive additional open space. Mr. Waldo stated that Mr. Miller was concerned about when the foothills policies begin to apply and at what point would something else be allowed. He said these concerns were what the Board and ultimately the City Council must determine. Staff did not feel this particular property needed Overland Trail as its boundary to break where the RF zone should start and where something else might be appropriate. Staff was led to this conclusion based on the surrounding land uses. He stated there have not been any major changes in this vicinity which he was aware of that did not exist in 1986. Member Kern stated that staff presented to the Board a question as to whether this was appropriate for RLP or RF, and was the line was Overland Trail or not. Mr. Miller believed the facts presented to the. neighborhood when the City began the process for the RF zone, were the hardcore facts. He said this was the first application to his knowledge to come in on any of the five properties. Mr. Waido stated they have had an annexation which was in area #5, Overland Acres Annexation, so this was the second. Mr. Miller said that in regards to where the line was drawn, it did not give any consideration to them as to what the appropriate line for the RF zone, in that the multi -family homes that exists on the west side of Overland Trail stops. He asked Mr. Waido to show the boundary. Mr. Waido used the aerial slide to delineate the boundary lines and zoning area. Mr. Miller said there were different interpretations as to the use west of Overland Trail and doesn't feel they were trying to deny the applicant the right to develop. He did believe that what was proposed was not in line with what they have established in the last 15 years and does not believe the City should deviate from the policies established which they developed. He believed the line should be drawn along side the existing higher density uses, not where it is just to accommodate a project which was tripling the amount of homes which could be accommodated on that piece of ground. He asked the Board to look at the land from the 5,200' parallel down, buy the green space and stick with the RF Zone. Alvin Miller, property owner, read a letter which he also addressed to City Council, Department Heads and the Planning and Zoning Board. The letter included his concerns with the irrigation and rainfall for the propc: ty and unless strict and enforce regulations to monitor the groundcover use, much of • the place would be destroyed and denuded of all vegetation. He suggested an environmental impact study be done to determine how much livestock, if any, the area can carry. He believed the City, in its effort to acquire more land, did not follow through with its duties. He stated the City has acquired 200 acres west of their property, which had been torn up by the Water Department for the past four years. Written prom- ises have been made that the ground would be re -seeded, but he claims 90% of the revegetation has been nothing but weeds. He said that they called the City Manager last year to complain about the weeds, and result was that the City would monitor and maintain the area. This year, after 5 weeks of contacts, they finally got the City to clean their side of the fence. He read to the Board his complaints of the access road and its unrestricted use by dirtbike riders, jogger and dogs, with and without owners and was an area out of control. He ended the letter with a request that this zoning be denied. Member Kern believed the applicants' points were appropriate for urban den- sity but by having a foothills policy, it was quite clear that this area of the City has been set aside for non -urban density, so the points were appropriate for lands subject to the LDGS. He said if this property was to be considered in the RF zone, then the points applicable to urban density were no longer valid. He said it had been determined that Overland Trail was the break between urban development to the east and lower density residential to the west and this has been upheld. He cited the Stuart Rezoning, which the Board rejected unanimously. He stated that when Overland Trail was proposed as an arterial, a study done of this area found that there are weaker winds near the foothills and the winds develop as you go farther away from them. The study also noted that due to this inversion situation, the air below 5,200' may be rr-� '!-.-in that of the rest of the City. The Stuart Rezoning was designed so that the relocation of Overland Trail would be the dividing line, and the portion to the west of the relocated Overland Trail would be designated RF and the Board maintain this as the dividing line. He objected to the fact that this was called a cluster development. In all the books he was given, a cluster development was to provide open space in an immediate area for either passive or active recreation. He stated he could recognize the open space near the hogback as open space in the visual sense, but can't recognize it in a pas- sive/active sense. The whole point was whether or not this seen as an RLP proposal. He said when looking at the zoning itself, only after annexation of the property into the RF zone, could a cluster plan be developed. If the applicant wished to consider a cluster development straight out and really have a cluster development, this land would have to be all zoned RF and he pre- sumed the applicant did not wish this to happen. He did not like an aesthetic arbitrator telling him look around at existing large acreage development blight caused by so-called ranchette sites. He quoted,"... just imagine the visual mess of ranchettes littering the foothills." He stated they were setting a bad precedent and believed they should re -affirm and, if need be, put in the condition to the resolution, that Overland Trail be the boundary which would have urban densities to the east and RF zone with much less density to the west. He believed the present proposal with 5.6 units 0 per acre is too intense for a region which had been designated as RF and • would have the health and safety concerns they don't wish to see in that Portion of the City. Member Walker stated that in the packet they received Resolution 86-141, revisions to the UGA. In reading this policy, he said the map showed the area and clearly stated what could happen in this area. From a policy standpoint, he did not know why it was before the Board, as this was a policy passed by City Council. He believed from the Board's point of view, they must look at a policy which has been established. He stated any justification for consideration was in the area of growth management which says development design should address com- patibility with existing and planned uses on existing and adjacent public and private land. Since there was a certain amount of contiguity to the develop- ment to the south of the proposal, he could see some consideration, based on that aspect of the plan, but certainly not 100 acres and 5 plus units per acre. He said that by putting in this type of acreage, it was creating a larger area of high density development which would not just attempt to create compatibil- ity, but would give new definition to that area. He stated nothing in the policy can justify this project in any means. Member Shepard asked if the Overland Acres P.U.D. had 240 acres. Mr. Waldo answered yes. • Member Shepard asked if Overland Hills Annexation and Zoning was on a dif- ferent piece of property. `-1r. Waldo stated there was Overland Hills Annexatior whi-` was the Stuart property. Member Shepard stated that was the property zoned RF, west of what -night be a future Overland Trail and RLP east of that. She asked if the potential Overland Trail was used as a boundary line, what was the distance from the 5,200' elevation. Mr. Waldo did not know the exact numbers, but stated from the potential site of the relocation of Overland Trail, the property went to the west, up to the peak at 5,200'. It then dropped. He stated the pieces of property to the east of the ridge would actually be below 5,200' and there was a portion which went above it. He said that there was a portion west of the first hump which would also be below 5,200'. The western boundary of the Stuart property would have been, if you took the sectionline of Overland Trail and extended that due south, to the western boundary of the RF zone. Member Kern moved to deny the item. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Motion to deny Noel Annexation carried 6-0. Chairperson O'Dell told the audience that the remaining items would be carried over to the next meeting, November 23, 1988. Meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m. 0 a m: Noel Annexation and Zoning #58-87,A P & Z Meeting - October 24, 1988 Page 6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND REPORT TO THE NOEL ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST The requested zoning for Noel Annexation is in two parts: 1) 187.5420 acres of R-F, Foothills Residential for the western portion of the property; and 2) 100.0105 acres of R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential for the eastern portion of the property. The purpose of this report is to review of the past history of the foothills area. Governmental land use policy to guide the development of the foothills area west of Fort Collins, as will be described, has been an issue for a long time. Of critical importance to governmental development regulations for the area is the balancing of the proper utilization of the land, the economical provision of public facilities and services, and the protection of the natural environmental systems of the area. The first Parks and Recreation Plan for the City of Fort Collins was com- pleted in January 1962. At that time the city had a population of slightly over 25,000 and a size of 6 square miles. The planning area extended west to Horsctooth Reservoir and east to I-25. While the plan expected population growth in the community to eventually reach County Road 29 (the present Overland Trail, but known at that time as Maxwell Road south of Laporte Avenue and Laporte Road north of Laporte Avenue) and contained a section "Preservation of Areas of Scenic Value," the foothills were not specifically discussed, although the upper reaches of Spring Creek were identified for future trail purposes. In 1967, the PLAN FOR PROGRESS was adopted by the City Council as the Comprehensive Plan for the community. The "Parks" section of the plan did not pay any special open space attention to the foothills area. In fact, the plan called for light industrial uses and a major expressway for the areas west of Overland Trail. According to the plan: "A new north -south expressway should be planned along the west edge of the City, extending from the Laporte area southerly to the west border of Loveland. Actually, this would be one link in a much larger 'foothills' travel way joining Laramie, Wyoming to the Colorado Springs region. Even though the construction of such an expressway is still a number of years off, it seems essential for future use by all of the major cities now expanding north and south of Denver. As Fort Collins expands its indus- trial and educational opportunities, it will draw more employees and students into the area, thus adding to the local need for this new express- way." In April 1973, city voters approved a one percent sales tax increase (effective to 1980) to be used for many items in a capital improvements program for the City. Included among the items was over $2 million to be used for open space acquisition. Several foothills properties have since been purchased by the City. .7 • Noel Annexation and Zoning #58-87,A P & Z Meeting - October 24, 1988 Page 7 In March 1974, the City Council adopted THE OPEN SPACE PLAN as an ele- ment in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. The major pur- pose of the plan was to provide the basis for the acquisition and preservation of land for open space uses. The "Open Space Objectives" section of the 1974 plan contained the following three goals: 1) To provide for active and passive recreational needs. 2) To preserve areas of scenic beauty or significant historical qualities. 3) To restrict development in areas which could produce hazard to life and property or environmental damage. The "Dakota Hogback or the east -facing slope of the first significant ridge west of the City" more commonly referred to as the foothills area, was identi- fied as one of the strategic areas to help accomplish the stated goals. In 1977, the community reinforced the need for preservation of the foothills in the statements contained in the GOALS AND OBJECTIVES document. Perhaps the most important statements being: 1) Give high priority Space Plan (1974), and land acquisition and the foothills. to achieving the goals of the Fort Collins Open insuring completion of the continuous trail system program involving the Poudre River, Spring Creek, 2) Restrict growth which will encroach on designated open space areas and/or will interfere with access to those areas." 3) Encourage urban density residential development to occur within the City, phased urban residential development in the urban service area, and rural development beyond the urban service area. In 1978, the City and Larimer County began a series of cooperative planning studies designed to develop urban growth management policies and implementa- tion techniques for the Fort Collins area. Of primary concern was the deline- ation of an area appropriate for urban development and the provision of cost-effective public facilities and services. These studies eventually led to the development of an urban growth area surrounding Fort Collins. The first of these studies, the URBAN SERVICE AREA STUDY completed in January 1979, recommended an urban service area boundary (see attached Urban Service Area Study map). The western portion of the boundary fol- lowed Overland Trail. The major reason for the boundary's location along Overland Trail was the City's "blue line" which identified the area beyond which the City could not provide adequate water pressure. The recommended boundary in the URBAN SERVICE AREA STUDY formed the basis for the boundary eventually adopted by the City and County in the • Noel Annexation and Zoning #58-87,A P & Z Meeting - October 24, 1988 Page 8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA. The UGA Agreement boundary (see attached Map One Exhi- bit A) was established in May 1980. In addition to establishing the UGA boundary, the UGA Agreement also contained land use development policies. These policies designated the areas west of Overland Trail to be "rural" which was consistent with the designation adopted as part of the LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE PLAN in March 1978. Rural development was defined as an allow- able density of I unit per 35 acres. In April 1981, about one year after the adoption of the UGA Agreement, a request (Case #48-81, UGA Amendment - Overland Trail) was made on behalf of the owners of private property located west of Overland Trail to amend the UGA boundary to include approximately 1,360 acres of their properties. The Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend denial of the request to the City Council. The denial was primarily based on the capacity to accommodate development within the present UGA boundary and the lack of adequate water utility service to the area. The Board felt it was necessary to re-evaluate the UGA in relation to the foothills in more detail before deciding the issue. Before the item was heard by the City Council and County Commissioners, the applicants requested tabling of the boundary change. The County was propos- ing completing a study similar to the one requested by the Board. The County's foothills study had a major purpose to identify appropriate land use for the foothills study area. The staff analyzed various factors which could affect development and public safety and welfare, including geologic constraints, utility service availability, land ownership and parcel sizes, air quality, and visual impacts for five clusters of private ownership properties (see attached Foothills Study map). The study concluded that private property cluster areas #2 through #5 should be changed from the Rural designation to the Rural Non -Farm designation and density be allowed to increase from I unit/35 acres to I unit/2.29 acres. Area #5 was also determined to be appro- priate for urban densities when the area could be included within the UGA boundary (see Map 1 Fort Collins Foothills Area). In addition to the recom- mended land use changes the study also established development guidelines for the area. In summary, these development guidelines are as follows: Public water and sewer utilities will be required. 2. Structure should be located below the 5200' elevation line in order to avoid physical constraints and ridgelines, and to facilitate water service. 3. Underground utilities will be required. 4. Development should be designed to conform to the terrain of the area. 5. Design should demonstrate a concern for the view of the foothills as well as from the foothills. • 0 • 01 Noel Annexation and Zoning #58-87,A P & Z Meeting - October 24, 1988 Page 9 6. Design should take into account the unique micro -climate of the area, particularly high winds. 7. Design should consider wildlife habitat. 8. Design should address compatibility with existing and planned uses on adjacent public and private lands. The above amendments were officially adopted in July 1982. In April 1984, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Overland Acres PUD Subdivision proposal (Case #22-84), a request for 130 single-family lots on 240 acres of the property presently under consideration for annexation. The project's proposed density exceeded the level allowed in the Rural Non -Farm designated area. The Board voted to recommend denial of the proposal to the Larimer County Planning Commission. In September, the proposal was revised and resubmitted. The development request was the same, 130 units, however, the proposal was changed to include a donation of 140 acres of open space, located above the 5200 foot contour level. After much discussion, the Board voted to recommend approval to the County. When the revised proposal reached the County, the County Commissioners ques- tioned the appropriateness of the subdivision outside of the UGA boundary. The Commissioners were concerned with the County's ability to provide services to the subdivision feeling the density was approaching urban levels and that the development should occur within the city limits. The Commissioners approved the revised proposal with several conditions including the dedication of open space. However, because of the issues raised by the proposal, the City and County planning staffs were again asked to re-evaluate the foothills area. In early 1985, a joint staff report was completed which recommended the western UGA boundary be changed to include all of the privately owned prop- erty adjacent to the UGA boundary. Staff justified the recommendation as follows: 1) the amendment would be consistent with the County and City Compre- hensive Plans; 2) recent improvements to the City's water system allowed the City to provide service to the area and staff felt the City should have the final decision authority concerning development proposals and land use issues; 3) the boundary change would provide for better utilization of the land and public utilities; and 4) the boundary change would not compromise the open space goals of the community and the foothills would remain in their natural state as ail aesthetic backdrop to the city. • 0 Noel Annexation and Zoning #58-87,A P & Z Meeting - October 24, 1988 Page 10 Staff believed the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM provided the necessary land use regulatory provisions to appropriately review development proposals in the foothills area. In July 1985, the Board voted to recommend approval of the UGA boundary change to the City Council. In November, the City Council denied the bound- ary change. The Council felt the LDGS did not provide for absolute limits to residential density to assure development of the area would be compatible with the environmental surroundings. The Council instructed staff to develop a method to limit the amount of residential development which could occur within the area, even though it may be located within the UGA boundary. In April 1986, staff prepared a proposal to allow the foothills area to be designated as a special rural character area within the UGA boundary. All policies, agreements, and requirements of the UGA would be in effect for the foothills area except residential density would be limited. For properties in the foothills area not eligible to annex into the City, subdivision density was placed at 1 unit/5 acres which could be increased to I unit/2.29 acres in a County PUD. For properties which annexed into the City, staff developed the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning District which allowed standard subdivisions at 1 unit/2.29 acres or a Cluster Development option which allowed a gross density of I unit/1 acre provided the development was in a clustered pattern with a net density of 3 - 5 units/1 acre. In October 1986, the City Council approved the UGA boundary amendment adding 1,360 acres of privately owned property along the west edge of the UGA boundary to the UGA (see attached map). The Council also established the R-F zone and adopted rural street standards to be applied to these areas. The recently revised UGA Agreement, June 1988, carried forth the foothills area concepts approved near the end of 1986. The UGA Agreement contains the following policy: "That the City and County shall establish an urban growth area su; round- ing the City of Fort Collins and mutually agree that said area is appropri- ate for the location and development of urban land uses and urban resi- dential densities, except as limited otherwise by agreement, such as the Foothills area, which, due to the environmental uniqueness of the area, is not appropriate for urban densities." As indicated from the discussion above, governmental land use policies and regulations for the foothills area have evolved over many years to define the appropriate level of residential density, coordinate public service design standards with the level of development density, and providing development guidelines to assure environmental harmony. • • • 0 sed ges a r S Al 14 O �/Iyy11/I/t/I�I111111/111/ � �-•i „ + ti - J !� � • r AMC • .' 1 71 - ,'r' �IIIrI11U'111�1 �� uji1 U/�/111/IIIIII���II/IIIYIOIl1111U11YU1U� _ 1. �..�,__ _:__. _„ .'=L..r.-T .--._..r.# L..,. ELT '��,'J \� • l �. _ �I ��y,�� F,1,\: — ;yR~i T\w",�'x'tti'; Ly~:li -�,.�-'_���Y _ F / J� . yII ..� )Ij ` `~ 1 ` -�• 1/1 111 all�h1/uul19- I�In11/1MINI 1/IIu11111i1 1r---! -- --+.. Im FK .1. _ ,,,, 1 �» � �•� -, 3 �1 �III� III.. _ IIi/t/tIl 1_ � _ 1111/ URBAN SERVICE AREA STUDY T. COLLINS 'URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY 97-- PA.—DOUNMOY LINE hl� • .sfr -; _ 41 it EXHIBIT A rc '� l.. / r � _` •:� it , .ram` a.a.� `� �' -. ^ t ± 'ail � • --- i �� .t_._.. / �' . . _. •>., ..,.%� i ..Y �' � ,-1•-• t� y,j��• � ' � i,- ) /\/I � ( � ... � `fly..,`' .— _ • Fish HaTChery cern ` vr• + or • . 7 r Ouarry • f I . CO. �' r Gravel /" 'I r .r.•. Pits 10,",•�ar� 1 � _ �� iT e • /. i :I'��. 1�`�u': t e Horsetootl Dam . ! � ,.rr. � .1' s �• . � i Christman Field • r �: • ! " tron I >i ��•- • lug . �,:1 i.: Y?___ '`1�trp-fant i �. ��h _ ,�. Ph�1Vi..Jr��a��•np ��1 •,�lp�.=ldr•�,�a -r�r•�� � •-'>. nn j - user `N �' :' `r Tgwers, a :: �- • ! Idler Can on _ .- 'si9r IA �, . /� - ., ,� . - f i F _77 Dam _ « �� •-s'��T��•'••-• may,•+ 'y. 1 `V II h II ,'�yr'," � , d P -iS �i' • •.-512 :Ysr r! 1� A �t'f II 'S�i' a II 1 i'r °,," • 4 •©•-i F.:Q •' w� •t.. ,,. • \ .,dot ia3L� �ap '`, II�ff.-5 _ �`,�'_�. j G ! , • l i i wM u '__'II t 'i!s i «! ••� C@nge• J' \� tr,cy„d�.S.:i.�iG•�� ^• �11 •\ • is:=:° ri+++� , =s� Parfc t`I- ' l..ia.•W!s.i ¢L COur3! �I .rrr �y�tSsLs•�+S.eS.(` ` � ,�\r` �. SKIy,'�•'pp �n�pp � '�,. ��jl''�d�.'�I��U�Jt�'�,� `ais \ f l�. , ,�, p \ � J Imo/ �LLI �,,,�'Ye! Vtl �7 " '�i2�7saa. 7 •�� : _ �\`„ 1 - :�,: ' M • 1�"-' - y...661:6dtADV SMTE i •a" `� ,F ,( 565z w . U2iIVE T it ?�� ��y-; I �•, •�#,,r I r� 1 4 �p�Ly �i' �d �� ♦ tiro R P•J5'`•'S- i � •� � r $, Y /�� �l j�l r�01 _ \\ \. `''• �•✓• Stadium22 .per V 1;•�_• Y T raP t: 'Oriwi¢ a J IJ�iMER t-10 Dixon Canyon o Dam y s s ,-11` " �� r' 1` 11� •��l A&— FOOTHILLS STUDY &: ` Vk DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS �', C L - r1,t•slt"(\`", •� ; mil' �+ `� �'_' R I Study Area. OLh \\r1 a1 r.% • • 11 i �� -Mort G. \\M x Gravel in• - '1 .j \` ` a Pits I 1 Hazard ``j �\ cS L ` s ` 1ti ' - i\ •! ��� 'g + ConstrainIL t, :DrY 5200' Level :L \ Lake 1 Spring Canyonii ( • `"L` _�,3►_ u:� \ _ Dam N= `ILK ;. .- wel Development i t: 3 S Areas . . . . 1� r\ � 1 ! _ Tl M� •� _ �� A �f Urban Growth _~ 62 ) ✓ ^ 57fir. aC Y° jil i �� o ' _ Area . . . . . �Ie _ c � Rural � -= 6 } - - Non -Farm. . ti ti.� ■ 7; `''� c tit • `� • •� � ; �- �a ' I � � !' . ; (, -• - T�• —4— _ I 'Quarry Ch Harselcot 0 am e I ' 1 •. i Glnstman.Fido _` _ _ -J.-•'� r. Fi trauon � ~ .. �1� �" : i • •.: I• �7� ' �':: I�"�`y �t :,-t �•�r.��:.�.�^'r;'`.` . Y- ` "'`__'^'i •� I I . tan( ` , i�7�!C.• i •'s i. • l •Qa0r0� �Y� �.t.a.a.�. rrs. _j. :: Id,er Can (.ra�' �.�•w t , �. 't y' Dam _ Sr2�~ ' I� /�, n CC,T��'�'sA=j-.•;g3�sl[�.' _-•- c•'.'+�.a 'j r©� -t.� • i1, i'• j y' I Cu .. �` \. - .sPs•°.: ef• F. .I ` � 7 fir•` ��.�•tvs. a�:�f•..�ar+' Golf Course IN •i ,^ �t�+� :.r.. L j LJ L 7 �, •zip-- ~_� s d ` s �. �•��z. _ —.>�. l / ^eet_ .;'2•t`cT'{1 '• , 1� :F �'1 =�' tiSWt.\DV WATT �,s.• ' * 'p'.R - �tF iL_ ,\'•!/� - I _ . U,ItvERSrLJ= ..%' - _ '. �.. \ t . `t � 16Jrh. _ .2 ��'/��. ' arm tt it � .wi �!'�II'=-.r: _.•e� .- _ •- _ yb, i lr3 r •._ . p + I r. '� ro + .�"• a't+'tr i� '' � • roes � ' Ate: i stacturn _�� � ' _�_i �.�^ %•_=' .`� ` !� .i Pit c 'TMitet j� \ a i\, ��%-s-J•� C ' Ar Dixon Canyonj Dam ' 7 o Utz MAP 1 $ • == =+-� • ` •� '.• . � yam_ t FORT COLLINS FOOTHILLS AREA a. t sGravel -`I= I i Ome• sz• Study Area. . . _ soel 15J .. Urban Growth �.= Area . . . . . j. Take - Spring �. I 1..s...'.' -' Canyon ' ' S B CaOamr ti - _ A v� �r Mc Cleilan Rural v Non -Farm . . . . `Y - Urban Growth - _J• :�; �� q �`- ��. f = t- - - •. ' Area Potential 0 Jo RI HARM COUNTRY CLN ........... t.- WILLO' :: o A .. CO�ti HIGHWAY 14 .......... 'i :.:. : FORT... �.-. .. ti - • COLLINS : ' • • S� .... ..f: .... ....... ............ ::,: ' :,:::r �::: 5 , j '-� �. �• 7 .' N ............. : r+oRs o N` :. :. �. t;. .. Ll CO. R0.13.4•• • 3 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f DATE: August 19, 1986 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM: Tom Peterson SUBJECT: Items Relating to the Foothills Area Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of items A - E and that item F be withdrawn. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Amendment of the Urban Growth Area boundary in the foothills area has been under consideration since 1981. Policies reflecting an intent to limit land use in the area to low density residential, environmental concerns, and efficient delivery of utility services are proposed to provide reasonable control of development in this area. Five items relating to an Urban Growth Area boundary amendment in the foothills area are presented for Council consideration. The items include: the specific boundary amendment, amendments to the UGA Agreement, a new City zoning district for the foothills area, revision of the existing R-E zoning district, and rural street standards. The sixth item, the Stuart UGA boundary amendment request, is encompassed in the larger boundary amendment request. Therefore, staff is recommending that Item F be withdrawn. BACKGROUND: A. Resolution 86- 140 Amending the Western Boundary of the Fort Collins Urban Growth A—rea to Include Approximately 1,360 Acres of Privately Owned Land. B. Resolution 86- 141 Authorizing a Series of Amendments to the Fort Collins UGA Agreement Recognizing the 'Foothills Area' as a ,Special Area Within the UGA and Establishing Development Guideyir,es for the Area. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1986, Amending Chapter 118 of City Code (the Zoning Ordinance), Creating a New R-F, Foothills Residential, Zoning District, With a Standard Maximum Density of 1 Unit Per 2.29 Acres but Including a Cluster Development Option Which Could Allow an Increase in Density to 1 Unit Per Acre. D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1986, Amending Chapter 118 of City Code, Making Amendments to tfie Present R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, Increasing the Minimum Lot Size from 9,000 Square Feet to 30,000 Square Feet (Approximately 3/4 Acre Minimum Lot Size), Increasing the Minimum Lot Width from 75 Feet to 135 Feet, Increasing the Minimum Side Yard from 10 Feet to 20 Feet, and Eliminating the Planned Unit Development Option Within the Zone. 0 • C7 • • DATE: August 19, 1986 I -2- [ITEM NUMBER: 29 a E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1986, Amending Chapter 99 of City Code (the Subdivision Ordinanc 7, Establishing a "Rural" Street Design Standard for the R-F and R-E Zoning Districts for Use on Cul-de-sacs and Limited Loop Streets. F. Resolution 85-210 Amending the Boundary of the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area to Include the Stuart Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment of Approximately 80 Acres Located South of Horsetooth Road and West of Taft Hill Road. Governmental land use policy to guide the development of the 'foothills area' west of the City of Fort Collins has been an issue since the early 1970's. Of critical importance to governmental development regulations for the area is the balancing of the proper utilization of the land, the economical provision of public facilities and services, and the protection of the natural environmental systems of the area. The proposed items attempt to fulfill each of these goals by defining the appropriate level of residential density for the area, coordinating public service design standards with the level of development density, and providing development guidelines to assure environmental harmony. In August of 1980, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA for the purpose of guiding and managing urban development in the Fort Collins metropolitan area. The UGA Agreement also contained changes to the Larimer County MASTER LAND USE PLAN for areas outside of the UGA boundary. Some of these changes indicated that the 'foothills area' west of Fort Collins should be placed into the "Rural" classification, allowing residential development at a minimum lot size of 35 acres. In 1981, a boundary change to the Fort Collins UGA was requested (Case #48-81 UGA Amendment - Overland Trail) for all privately owned properties, approximately 1,360 acres, located west of the Fort Collins UGA boundary and north of County Road 36 (extended). At that time, the City's planning staff recommended denial of the request based primarily on the capacity to accommodate development within the existing UGA boundary and the fact that utility services had not been extended into the area. The Planning and Zoning Board denied the request by a vote of 5-2 stating it was necessary to re-evaluate the UGA in relation to the foothills in more detail before deciding the issue. In 1982, the Larimer County planning staff prepared a "Foothills Study" which re-evaluated the area west of Fort Collins and eventually led to the changing of the area's designation from the "Rural" to the "Rural Non -Farm" classification in the Larimer County MASTER LAND USE PLAN. The change in designation allowed an increase in residential density from 1 unit per 35 acres to 1 unit per 5 acres (1 unit per 2.29 acres in a County planned unit development). In April 1984, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Overland Acres PUD Subdivision proposal (Case #22-84), a request for 130 single family lots on 240 acres, located west of Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road (extended). The project's density (1 unit per 1.84 acres) exceeded DATE August 19, 1986 I -3- 1 ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f the level allowed in the Rural Non -Farm designated area (1 unit per 2.29 acres). The planning staff recommended denial of the proposal and the Board voted 7-0 to recommend denial to the County Planning Commission. The proposal was revised, resubmitted and heard by the Board in September 1984. The revised request included the same number of units (130). However, the developer was willing to cluster the units on a portion of the property and donate 140 acres of open space, located above the 5200 foot contour level, to the City or County. Staff recommended approval of the revised request and the Board voted 5-2 to recommend approval to the County. When the revised proposal reached the County, the County Commissioners questioned the appropriateness of the subdivision outside of the UGA boundary. The clustering design of the subdivision gave it a net residential density of 1.3 units per acre (130 units on 100 acres). The City and County planning staffs held several meetings with the Commissioners on the proposal and the UGA in general (two of the Commissioners were recently elected and were not that familiar with UGA provisions and regulations). The Commissioners were concerned with the County's ability to provide services to the subdivision with a density approaching urban level development and believed the development should occur within the city limits. Because of the decision -making quandary the Overland Acres Subdivision caused the City and County, the City and County planning staffs were again asked to re-evaluate the Foothills area. (Subsequently, the county granted Master Plan approval and preliminary approval of Phase I.) During the spring of 1985, the City and County staffs completed a joint report which recommended the viestern Fort Collins UGA boundary be changed to include all of the privately owned property adjacent to the present boundary north of County Road 36 extended. Staff justified the recommendation as follows: 1) the amendment would be consistent with the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plans; 2) because of recent improvements to the City's water system, the City would be the agency providing utility services to the area and should have final authority concerning land use issues; 3) the boundary change would provide for better utilization of the land and public utilities west of Overland Trail; and 4) the boundary change would not compromise the open space goals of the community and the foothills would remain in their natural state as an aesthetic backdrop to the City of Fort Collins. On July 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the UGA boundary change (inclusive of the Stuart boundary amendment request) to the City Council. On November 5, 1985, the City Council denied the boundary change on a vote of 5-2. The Council felt the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM did not provide for absolute limits to residential density to ensure that development of the area would be compatible with the environmental surroundings. Since that time, City and County staff have been working on methods to allow the inclusion of the properties into the UGA and still limit the amount of residential development which can occur in the area. ri DATE: August 19, 1986 I -4- ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f On May 19, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board again recommended approval (7-0) of the UGA boundary amendment, along with suggested modifications to the UGA Agreement and the RE zone and a new RF zone. On June 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (7-0) of the proposed rural street standards for application in the foothills area. The changes described below would allow the 'Foothills Area' to be designated as a special "rural character" area within the Fort Collins UGA. All policies, agreements, and requirements of the UGA, including the annexation Phasing Criteria which require properties adjacent to the city limits to annex into the city, would be in effect for the 'Foothills Area' except: density would be limited to 1 unit per 5 acres (1 unit per 2.29 acres in a County planned unit development) for proposals outside of the city limits; and urban street design standards could be reduced to a rural street standard for large lot residential development proposals if safety, economical maintenance, and storm water drainage provisions are not compromised. The residential density limitation for the specified 'Foothills Area' would be consistent with the density presently allowed in the Rural Non -Farm classification for development proposals outside of the city limits. For properties which annex into the city the new R-F zone would be applied. The R-F zone restricts development to 1 unit per 2.29 acres, but allows a Cluster Development option which could increase density up to 1 unit per acre. The Cluster Development option is designed to encourage annexation. Only after annexation and zoning of property into the R-F zone could a Cluster Development Plan be proposed in an attempt to increase residential density to 1 unit per acre (increased density being the only incentive for annexation). This approach would put decision making authority for 1 unit per acre development solely at the discretion of the City. The specific components of the UGA boundary amendment are as follows: A. THE UGA BOUNDARY CHANGE The area to be added to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area is shown on the attached map. This is the same 1,360 acres of private property that were proposed in 1981 as part of the Overland Trail UGA Amendment and resubmitted by staff in 1985. B. REVISIONS TO THE UGA AGREEMENT The purpose of the revisions to the UGA Agreement is to allow the inclusion of the private properties of the Fort Collins 'Foothills Area' into the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, but limit development under County jurisdiction in the foothills area to low density residential uses. Once properties annex into the city, the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning District, would be applied to maintain the area as a low density single-family residential area. The revisions further establish guidelines for new development in order to protect and enhance the scenic and environmental setting of the foothills. For example, one addition to the agreement is that new structures be located below 5,200 feet elevation. The intent is to preserve the DATE. August 19, 1986 -5' 1 ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f unobstructed view of the foothills which is considered an important aesthetic and urban design feature of the community. Above the 5,200 foot elevation contour is an environmentally sensitive area in terms of geology and wildlife and is defined by the County as a geologic hazard area where rockfalls might occur. City water service is also unavailable above 5,200 feet because of inadequate water pressure. Recommended additions and revisions to the UGA Agreement are shown below in ALL CAPITAL letters. Page 3: 1. The City and County would agree upon an urban growth area surrounding the City of Fort Collins AND WOULD AGREE THAT THIS AREA IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN LAND USES AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH, DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIQUENESS OF THE AREA, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 3. That the County would approve only urban level developments within the Urban Growth Area, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA', and that said development would conform to City design standards. Page 4: 3. Development Within the Urban Growth Area, The County agrees.... In addition, for those parcels not eligible for annexation to the City, the County agrees to follow the phasing criteria included in the Supplemental Regulations and to limit development to urban densities, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA,' WHICH WILL BE LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, consistent with design standards included in the Supplemental Regulations. Page 10: II.8.1. Residential. a. Single Family: Refers to single family detached dwelling units. SUCH USE IS APPROPRIATE IN AREAS GENERALLY HAVING A DENSITY in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre, EXCEPT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHEREIN DENSITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE (1) UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OR; IN A COUNTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE (1) UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES. Page 12: II.C.I.e. Residential developments should provide for a mix of housing types and densities, EXCEPT IN THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH IS LIMITED TO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AT A DENSITY OF ONE (1) UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OR; IN A COUNTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE (1) UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES. A new section will be added to EXHIBIT A after Section I (page 15) FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA as follows: • DATE 11 • August 19, 1986 II. FORT COLLINS FOOTHILLS AREA m ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f THIS SECTION PRESENTS THE POLICIES FOR THE AREAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA IDENTIFIED AS THE 'FOOTHILLS AREA' ON MAP ONE. A. FOOTHILLS AREA THE PURPOSE OF THE FOOTHILLS AREA IS TO: (1) PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY DISCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS; (2) PRESERVE THE NATURAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC FOOTHILLS AS AN AESTHETIC BACKDROP TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; AND (3) PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT 1. ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOOTHILLS AREA (AS SHOWN ON MAP ONE) SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES: a. PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER WILL BE REQUIRED. b. STRUCTURES SHOULD BE LOCATED BELOW THE 5,200 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR. c. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED. d. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO THE TERRAIN. STRUCTURE SITES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED BY BUILDING ENVELOPES, AND LOCATED SO THAT GRADING AND FILLING ARE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. NATURAL FEATURES SUCH AS DRAINAGE SWALES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS AND SLOPES SHOULD BE RETAINED. e. DESIGN SHOULD DEMONSTRATE A CONCERN FOR THE VIEW OF THE FOOTHILLS AS WELL AS FROM THE FOOTHILLS. f. DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE UNIQUE MICRO -CLIMATE OF THE FOOTHILLS. BUILDING ENVELOPES SHOULD BE SELECTED, LANDSCAPE PLANS DESIGNED, AND INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES BUILT FOR PROTECTION FROM HIGH WINDS AND TO FUNCTION WITH MAXIMUM CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. g. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD CONSIDER WILDLIFE HABITAT. LEAVING OPEN SPACE IN A SINGLE BLOCK IS ENCOURAGED. h. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED USES ON ADJACENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND. THIS MIGHT INCLUDE BUFFERING INCOMPATIBLE USES OR PROVIDING ACCESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT TO PUBLIC RECREATION AREAS. • • DATE: August 19, 1986 C. LAND USE TYPES -1- ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f THE FOLLOWING USES WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE FOOTHILLS AREA: 1. LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. REFERS TO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. 2. OPEN SPACE. AREAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC FOOTHILLS AND MAINTAIN THEM AS AN AESTHETIC BACKDROP TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. SUCH AREAS COULD INCLUDE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SUCH AS PASTURES AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL USES, EXCLUSIVE OF IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE 5,200 FEET OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK FENCING. PUBLIC AREAS COULD ALSO SERVE THIS FUNCTION THROUGH USES SUCH AS PARKS AND TRAILS. SEE ALSO EXHIBIT A, I. FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, B. LAND USE TYPES, 5. RECREATION, OF THIS AGREEMENT. D. DENSITY/INTENSITY/LOCATIONAL 1. RESIDENTIAL a. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED AT A DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES. CLUSTERING OF DWELLING UNITS WILL BE ALLOWED PROVIDED THE GROSS DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED ONE UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. LARIMER COUNTY WILL AMEND ITS ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE FOOTHILLS AREA. E. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. SEE EXHIBIT A, SECTION I. FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, D. ENVIRONMENTAL (PAGE 14), OF THIS AGREEMENT. Section II of Exhibit A entitled "Land Use Policies for the Area Beyond the Urban Growth Area" will become Section III of Exhibit A. Page 16: Delete II.B.5. Page 23: IV.B. To define areas of Larimer County, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA,' where urban densities and uses are appropriate when consistent with the phasing criteria and design standards of the Larimer County Urban Growth Area Regulation. Page 24: IV.E. To encourage the annexation of land that is to be developed with urban uses or at urban densities, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH IS LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY • • • • DATE: August 19, 1986 I -8- ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, in order that the provision of urban services by Larimer County is minimized. Map One (page 8) and Map Two (page 19) will be revised to reflect this boundary amendment and the recent South Harmony boundary amendment. C. R-F, FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT The purpose of the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning District, is to allow the development of private properties along the western edge of the City of Fort Collins to occur within the city limits, but restrict residential densities to those deemed appropriate given the fringe locational nature of the properties and the area's environmental concerns. In order for the R-F zone to apply, properties would have to be annexed into the city. In order for properties to annex into the city, changes would have to be made to the UGA boundary to include private properties located in the western portion of the community. According to the present UGA Agreement between the City and Larimer County, the City will not annex property outside of the UGA boundary even if a specific property is eligible for annexation according to State annexation laws. Properties within the UGA which are adjacent to the city limits must annex into the city if a development proposal (i.e., rezoning, subdivision, or planned unit development) is submitted to the County on that property. The UGA Agreement prohibits the County from approving development proposals on properties which are eligible for voluntary annexation into the city. In order to encourage voluntary annexation of properties, the R-F zone allows residential development at a density greater than what would normally be allowed under the County's MASTER LAND USE PLAN designation for the foothills area. In order to achieve this higher density, a Cluster Development Plan must be approved by the City. The Cluster Development Plan allows the trade-off of relatively higher density for the preservation of open space and the addressing of other public environmental concerns of the foothills area. While the Cluster Development Plan would allow for relatively higher residential densities no multi -family uses would be allowed. Residential development would be limited to detached single-family dwellings. The specific provisions of the R-F zone are presented below. The zone does NOT allow a planned unit development approach, via the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM, to development. Thus, the only uses allowed on properties zoned R-F would be those listed under Section A. Uses permitted. The development of any other use would require a rezoning of property to another City zoning district. R-F Foothills Residential District This district designation is for low density residential areas, located near the foothills. 0 1 A. Uses permitted. DATE: August 19, 1986 -9- ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f (1) One -family dwellings. (2) Public and private schools for elementary and high school education. (3) Public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use. (4) Churches. (5) Essential public utility and public service installations and facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding area, provided business offices and repair and storage facilities are not included. (6) Group homes, subject to approval by special review. (7) Accessory buildings and uses, except home occupations. B. Minimum area of lot. Minimum lot area shall not be less than 2.29 acres. C. Minimum width of lot. Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200) feet. D. Minimum front yard. Minimum depth of the front yard shall be sixty (60) feet. E. Minimum rear yard. Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet. F. Minimum side yard. Minimum side yard width shall be fifty (50) feet. G. Maximum topographic limitation of development. No portion of any building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above 5200 feet mean sea level. H. Farm animals. Notwithstanding any provision of the city's Animal Control Ordinance, it shall be permissible for farm animals to be kept on any R-F zoned property as an accessory use. Farm animals shall include, but not be limited to, the following: chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and cattle. I. Cluster Development Plan. Areas which are located on a cluster development plan, subject to approval by special review of the Planning and Zoning Board may vary the requirements of this section, providing the following basic regulations are enforced: (1) Only the uses listed in Section A. Uses permitted, are allowed. • • 0 • DATE. August 19, 1986 1 -10- [ ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f (2) The overall gross density of residential units on the cluster development plan is not greater than one (1) unit per acre. (3) Building envelopes are identified on the cluster development plan; the minimum area of lot, minimum width of lot, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, and minimum side yard, conform to the requirements established in the R-E Estate Residential District; and the subdivision plat meets all the requirements of Chapter 99, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (4) The layout of lots on the cluster development plan are designed to conform to terrain and located so that grading and filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes are retained. (5) All elements of building structures will be located below the 5,200 foot elevation contour. (6) The cluster development plan is designed to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the view of the foothills as well as the view from the foothills. (7) The cluster development plan takes into account the unique micro -climate of the foothills so that building envelopes are selected and individual structures will be built for protection from high winds and to function with maximum conservation of energy. (8) The cluster development plan shows consideration for wildlife habitats by leaving open large single blocks of land. (9) The cluster development plan addresses compatibility with existing and planned uses on adjacent public and private property. Buffering of incompatible uses will be required through landscaping and/or site design and public access through the cluster development plan must be provided to public recreational areas. (10) If farm animals are intended to be allowed within the area, the cluster development plan must indicate the portions of the area reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas from surrounding uses. D. CHANCES TO THE EXISTING R-E, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT The R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, is a designation for low density residential areas usually located in outlying areas. The minimum lot size is presently 9,000 square feet. Staff recommends the minimum lot size be increased from 9,000 to 30,000 square feet (about 3/4 acre minimum lot size). • n U DATE August 19, 1986 -11- ITEM NUMBER: 29 a-f There are several reasons for the recommended increase in minimum lot size. Staff anticipates the R-E zone to be applied, as it has been in recent times, to existing large lot county subdivisions when they annex into the city. Staff feels it is important that a "rural" life style be provided for within the city limits rather than having increased pressure for such development beyond the UGA boundary. This rural life style includes the keeping of farm animals, particularly horses, on residential properties. While most of the existing county large lot subdivisions have minimum lot sizes in excess of 2 acres, staff feels a 3/4 acre minimum lot size would not infringe upon the rural life style of the development. The City's Animal Control Ordinance and County regulations require 1/2 acre (21,780 square feet) of "pasture" per horse. A minimum 30,000 square foot lot would provide enough lot area for a "yard" of 8,000 to 9,000 square feet for a single family home plus the minimum 1/2 acre of "pasture" for a horse. In addition to increasing the minimum lot size, staff is also recommending increasing the minimum lot width from 75 feet to 135 feet and increasing the minimum side yard from 10 feet to 20 feet. The final major amendment to the existing R-E zone recommended by staff is the elimination of the planned unit development option from the zone. The only uses allowed in the R-E zone would be those uses which are listed within the zone as 'Uses Permitted'. This would assure that the properties zoned R-E would remain large lot single family residential areas which would maintain a "rural" atmosphere and life style. Any other use for properties zoned R-E would first have to receive approval of a rezoning to another zoning district before submitting a development plan. E. RURAL STREET STANDARDS One of the more important perceptional components of a "rural" setting is the design of the street system. Normally, rural streets do not have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The full requirement of "urban" street design standards for low density residential developments for the 'Foothills Area' needs to make sense from an economic perspective. City staff held several discussions on establishing a "rural" street design standard which centered on the issues of public safety, economical maintenance, and storm water drainage. There were also discussions as to where the "rural" standard would be in effect or could be used. Staff investigated several design options which eliminated curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Storm water drainage became a major concern and the use of borrow ditches and valley pans were reviewed. The use of borrow ditches for drainage creates several problems. Foremost is general maintenance. The City presently has no equipment to maintain borrow ditch drainage systems and given the expected limited use of the "rural" street design, standard capital investments in such maintenance equipment cannot be justified. A flatter slope, i.e., from 1:1 to 4:1, to allow maintenance by mowers creates a need for excessive amounts of right-of-way. For example, the present "urban" local street design calls for 36 feet of pavement within 54 feet of right-of-way. To build a "rural" local street of 36 feet with 4:1 slope borrow ditches for drainage would require 74 feet of way (a 37% increase). Flat sloped streets are almost impossible to build in u 0II 01 DATE August 19, 1986 1 -12- 1 ITEM NUMBER 2q a-f moderately rolling terrain, such as may be found in several areas near the foothills, and still solve storm drainage problems with borrow ditches. In some alternatives investigated by staff, the cost figures for a "rural" street, including maintenance costs over a 20 year period, were actually more expensive than an "urban" street. The "rural" street standard staff is recommending is for 28 feet of pavement on a 46 foot r-o-w with roll-over curb to carry storm drainage (see attached drawing). Staff believes this street design should be limited to the R-F and R-E zones and be further limited to cul-de-sacs and loop streets which serve less than 20 units. Any street in a subdivision located in an R-F or R-E zone which functions as a collector street or a local street which has the opportunity to connect through the development into another development must be built to current city "urban" design standards. F. STUART UGA BOUNDARY AMENDMEKT REQUEST The Stuart boundary amendment request is included within the larger boundary amendment but the applicant had asked for separate consideration. The Stuart request has been tabled numerous times, pending development of the policies contained in the above items. Separate action on Resolution 85-210 is required, regardless of action on item A, because it was formally tabled to this Council meeting of August 19, 1986. RECOMMENDATION The following findings are offered in support of the staff recommendation for approval of all components included in this item: 1. The UGA boundary amendment for the 'Foothills Area' is supported by the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plans, especially the provisions which encourage a variety of life styles and residential densities and housing opportunities in the community. 2. The service area agreement between Fort Collins and the Loveland -Fort Collins Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District designates Fort Collins as the agency to provide services in areas north of Harmony. Fort Collins, therefore, should have the final authority concerning land use decisions in the foothills area. 3. Development will be limited to detached single family residential uses at a density which will be compatible with the natural environment of the area. 4. Development of the foothills area within the City will allow a better utilization of public utilities and will reduce the service responsibility of the County government. 5. Development should not occur above the 5,200 foot elevation contour because of the environmental sensitivity and geologic hazard above that level and because of the inability of the City to provide water service. DATE August 19, 1986 -13- ITEM NUMBER: 29 a 6. The UGA boundary change will not compromise the open space goals of the community and the foothills will remain in their natural state as an aesthetic backdrop to the City of Fort Collins. Based on the above findings, staff is specifically recommending the following Council actions: 1. Approval of a UGA boundary amendment to include within the UGA approximately 1,360 acres of privately owned property located west of and adjacent to the present UGA boundary. 2. Authorization of a series of amendments to the UGA Agreement which recognize the 'Foothills" Area' as a special area within the Fort Collins UGA and establish development guidelines for the area. 3. Approval of a new R-F, Foothills Residential, Zoning District which would be applied to properties within the 'Foothills Area' at the time of annexation limiting development to one unit per 2.29 acres, but allowing a cluster development option which could increase density to one unit per acre. 4. Approval of amendments to the existing R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District which increase the minimum lot size from 9,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet and eliminate the planned unit development option within the zone. 5. Approval of a "rural" street design standard for use in the R-F and R-E zones limited to cul-de-sacs and limited loop streets. 6. If Item A, the UGA boundary amendment for 1,360 acres is approved, the Stuart Boundary Amendment Request has been approved. Therefore, Resolution 85-210 should be formally withdrawn. If the comprehensive boundary amendment is denied by Council, staff recommends denial of the Stuart request in order to pursue consistent and cohesive policies for the entire foothills area. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the components of the Foothills Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment request at their regular monthly meetings of July 24, 1985, and May 19, and June 23, of 1986. The Board has voted to recommend approval of all components to the City Council. Copies of the Board's minutes are attached. 0 0 0 • RESOLUTION 86-140 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 1,360 ACRES OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF OVERLAND TRAIL WHEREAS, on August 3, 1983, the County of Larimer and the City of Fort Collins executed an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA for the purpose of establishing a formal mechanism to manage growth in the area surrounding the City of Fort Collins, Colorado; and WHEREAS, EXHIBIT B, Section III, Part E of said Agreement establishes criteria for amending Urban Growth Area boundaries; and WHEREAS, the staffs of Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins have prepared a report presenting justifications for amending the Urban Growth Area boundary at this location; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on July 24, 1985, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed boundary change and soliciting public comment concerning the same, and voted to recommend approval of the boundary change to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins conducted a work session for the purpose of reviewing the proposed boundary change on October 8, 1985, and reviewed the area's unique physical characteristics and environmental concerns and now concludes that the gross residential density of development within the area to be added by this resolution should be closely controlled to the extent legally permissible; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins conducted a public hearing on November 5, 1985, for the purposes of reviewing the proposed boundary change and soliciting public comment concerning the same; and WHEREAS, having heard the comments of the public and considered the proposed boundary revision to said Agreement, the Council of the City of Fort Collins does hereby find that said proposed boundary amendment is in the best interests of the citizens of the City, and, accordingly, ought to be incorporated into said Intergovernmental Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the proposed boundary revision to the Urban Growth Area as specifically presented in the report prepared by the staffs of Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, a description of which revision is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, be and is hereby approved provided that, to the extent that it is necessary and legally permissible, residential density within the geographic area added to the Urban Growth Area by this resolution shall be limited to 1.5 units per acre; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor be, and he hereby is, authorized to execute an amended Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County reflecting said revisions. 0 • Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of August, A.D. 1986. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • • C3 Fqn Malcnwy • + Q•Q - ! L� �cem Sao c \ . � pas •17:%) }I� L ' � �'..'(!r•.�':.�.:•�{r � �'+�"�� •'c • •� --� �, i fir. �y I Pont Ir 1 ; aiwcanyon\ •e,+, r- in��;' i� . ` }.^.;�,..��..� Oam lr►i ! 1 "' T 1 - ,,::;• 16 ,..i6r Pare r w.r. •[� "�,- ice. ILM 1 �I \ ti 'kR' - �'}'�•`w�. �•••-�•.�w.--QSLOAA STATE }= J SOS.? UNIYE \ li�I 1 / ~yl �V 'l,\ • � j �. /mow y � l� f=_�.•rfw.yL �� ,�� Is T 11 i , � 1� �Mdi • 1'•. ' t 'it MAP I _Pit : TnwK . ; g It Olson cWW Doan ` -/ ��' - _ - `••, Ati_ FOOTHILLS STUDY _ - 1 - r ` `• I DEVELOPMENT CONCEP . 4'`I ��� a ` ''•' I Study Area. in - _� •: _ _ .. '- a' `• iia -- =` ' Pit+ Hazard O -V - • Constraint. - ` _ :� `�� •_,:':, 52001 Level _ • - I - ' Spring Canrom -� al; ►_. , ', Oami ' 11 Vol a Development jr`; Areas Urban Growth east _ F. .tr'IM LL.� tar Area. t�iaJtJt� ,gyp PAORural Non —Farm. ara ■ E • RESOLUTION 86-141 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING REVISIONS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA AND ITS RELATED ELEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY WHEREAS, on April 29, 1980, the County of Larimer and the City of Fort Collins entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the purpose of establishing a formal mechanism to manage growth in the area surrounding the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, Section 7 of said Agreement provides for annual review of all elements of the Urban Growth Area Program; and WHEREAS, the staffs of Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins have studied and examined various revisions to the Urban Growth Area Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board did on the 8th day of July, 1985, conduct a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the proposed revisions and soliciting public comment concerning the same, and voted to recommend approval of the revisions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1986, for the purposes of reviewing the proposed revision and soliciting public comment concerning the same; and WHEREAS, having heard the comments of the public and considered the proposed revisions to said Agreement, the Council of the City of Fort Collins does hereby find that said proposed revisions (as set out in Exhibit A, hereto) are in the best interests of the citizens of the City, and, accordingly, ought to be incorporated into said intergovernmental Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the proposed revisions to the various elements of the Urban Growth Area Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference be, and the same hereby are, approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor be, and he hereby is, authorized to execute an amended intergovernmental agreement between the City and Larimer County reflecting said revisions. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 19th day of August, A.D. 1986. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk 0 LJ 0 •� EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION 86-141 Additions and revisions to the UGA Agreement are shown below in ALL CAPITAL letters. Page 3: The City and County would agree upon an urban growth area surrounding the City of Fort Collins AND WOULD AGREE THAT THIS AREA IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN LAND USES AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH, DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIQUENESS OF THE AREA, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 3. That the County would approve only urban level developments within the Urban Growth Area, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA', and that said development would conform to City design standards. Page 4: 3. Development Within the Urban Growth Area. The County agrees.... In addition, for those parcels not eligible for annexation to the City, the County agrees to follow the phasing criteria included in the Supplemental Regulations and to limit development to urban densities, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA,' WHICH WILL BE LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, consistent with design standards included in the Supplemental Regulations. Page 10: II.B.1. Residential. Single Family: Refers to single family detached dwelling units. SUCH USE IS APPROPRIATE IN AREAS GENERALLY HAVING A DENSITY in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre, EXCEPT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHEREIN DENSITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE (1) UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OR; IN A COUNTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE (1) UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES. Page 12: II.C.1.e. Residential developments should provide for a mix of housing types and densities, EXCEPT IN THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH IS LIMITED TO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AT A DENSITY OF ONE (1) UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OR; IN A COUNTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE (1) UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES. A new section will be added to EXHIBIT A after Section I (page 15) FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA as follows: i • II. FORT COLLINS FOOTHILLS AREA THIS SECTION PRESENTS THE POLICIES FOR THE AREAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA IDENTIFIED AS THE 'FOOTHILLS AREA' ON MAP ONE. A. FOOTHILLS AREA THE PURPOSE OF THE FOOTHILLS AREA IS TO: (1) PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND "WELFARE BY DISCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS; (2) PRESERVE THE NATURAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC FOOTHILLS AS AN AESTHETIC BACKDROP TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; AND (3) PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOOTHILLS AREA (AS SHOWN ON MAP ONE) SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES: a. PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER WILL BE REQUIRED. b. STRUCTURES SHOULD BE LOCATED BELOW THE 5,200 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR. c. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED. d. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO THE TERRAIN. STRUCTURE SITES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED BY BUILDING ENVELOPES, AND LOCATED SO THAT GRADING AND FILLING ARE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. NATURAL FEATURES SUCH AS DRAINAGE SWALES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS AND SLOPES SHOULD BE RETAINED. e. DESIGN SHOULD DEMONSTRATE A CONCERN FOR THE VIEW OF THE FOOTHILLS AS WELL AS FROM THE FOOTHILLS. f. DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE UNIQUE MICRO -CLIMATE OF THE FOOTHILLS. BUILDING ENVELOPES SHOULD BE SELECTED, LANDSCAPE PLANS DESIGNED, AND INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES BUILT FOR PROTECTION FROM HIGH WINDS AND TO FUNCTION WITH MAXIMUM CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. g. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD CONSIDER WILDLIFE HABITAT. LEAVING OPEN SPACE IN A SINGLE BLOCK IS ENCOURAGED. h. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED USES ON ADJACENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND. THIS MIGHT INCLUDE BUFFERING INCOMPATIBLE USES OR PROVIDING ACCESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT TO PUBLIC RECREATION AREAS. C. LAND USE TYPES THE FOLLOWING USES WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE FOOTHILLS AREA: 1. LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. REFERS TO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. 2. OPEN SPACE. AREAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC FOOTHILLS AND MAINTAIN THEM AS AN AESTHETIC BACKDROP TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. SUCH AREAS COULD INCLUDE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SUCH AS PASTURES AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL USES, EXCLUSIVE OF IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE 5,200 FEET OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK FENCING. PUBLIC AREAS COULD ALSO SERVE THIS FUNCTION THROUGH USES SUCH AS PARKS AND TRAILS. SEE ALSO EXHIBIT A, I. FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, B. LAND USE TYPES, 5. RECREATION, OF THIS AGREEMENT. D. DENSITY/INTENSITY/LOCATIONAL 1. RESIDENTIAL a. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED AT A DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES. CLUSTERING OF DWELLING UNITS WILL BE ALLOWED PROVIDED THE GROSS DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED ONE UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. LARIMER COUNTY WILL AMEND ITS ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE FOOTHILLS AREA. E. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. SEE EXHIBIT A, SECTION I. FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, 0. ENVIRONMENTAL (PAGE 14), OF THIS AGREEMENT. Section II of Exhibit A entitled "Land Use Policies for the Area Beyond the 16 Urban Growth Area" will become Section III of Exhibit A. Page 16: Delete II.B.5. Page 23: IV.B. To define areas of Larimer County, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA,' where urban densities and uses are appropriate when consistent with the phasing criteria and design standards of the Larimer County Urban Growth Area Regulation. Page 24: IV.E. To encourage the annexation of land that is to be developed with urban uses or at urban densities, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH IS LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, in order that the provision of urban services by Larimer County is minimized. Map One (page 8) and Map Two (page 19) will be revised to reflect this boundary amendment and the recent South Harmony boundary amendment. • • ORDINANCE NO. 123, 1986 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 118 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CREATING A NEW R-F, FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL, ZONING DISTRICT WITH A STANDARD MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 1 UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES BUT INCLUDING A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH COULD ALLOW AN INCREASE IN DENSITY TO 1 UNIT PER ACRE WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has considered the question of the type of development which would be appropriate to occur in the "Foothills Area" west of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City that the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fort Collins be amended to provide a new Foothills Residential Zoning District establishing criteria for development in the said Foothills Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Chapter 118, Article IV of the Code of the City be amended by the addition of a new Section 118-39 "R-F Foothills Residential District" as follows: Section 118-39. R-F, Foothills Residential District This district designation is for low density residential areas, located near the foothills. A. Uses permitted. (1) One -family dwellings. (2) Public and private schools for elementary and high school education. (3) Public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use. (4) Churches. (5) Essential public utility and public service installations and facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding area, provided business offices and repair and storage facilities are not included. (6) Group homes, subject to approval by special review. (7) Accessory buildings and uses, except home occupations. B. Minimum area of lot. Minimum lot area shall not be less than 2.29 acres. E 0 • C. Minimum width of lot. Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200) feet. D. Minimum front yard. Minimum depth of the front yard shall be sixty (60) feet. E. Minimum rear yard. Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet. F. Minimum side yard. Minimum side yard width shall be fifty (50) feet. G. Maximum topographic limitation of development. No portion of any building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above 5200 feet mean sea level. H. Farm animals. Notwithstanding any provision of the city's Animal Control Ordinance, it shall be permissible for farm animals to be kept on any R-F zoned property as an accessory use. Farm animals shall include, but not be limited to, the following: chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and cattle. I. Cluster Development Plan. Areas which are located on a cluster development plan, subject to approval by special review of the 46 Planning and Zoning Board may vary the requirements of this section, providing the following basic regulations are enforced: (1) Only the uses listed in Section A. Uses permitted, are allowed. (2) The overall gross density of residential units on the cluster development plan is not greater than one (1) unit per acre. (3) Building envelopes are identified on the cluster development plan; the minimum area of lot, minimum width of lot, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, and minimum side yard, conform to the requirements established in the R-E Estate Residential District; and the subdivision plat meets all the requirements of Chapter 99, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (4) The layout of lots on the cluster development plan are designed to conform to terrain and located so that grading and filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes are retained. (5) All elements of building structures will be located below the 5,200 foot elevation contour. (6) The cluster development plan is designed to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the view of the foothills as well as the view from the foothills. r: 0 (7) The cluster development plan takes into account the unique micro -climate of the foothills so that building envelopes are selected and individual structures will be built for protection from high winds and to function with maximum conservation of energy. (8) The cluster development plan shows consideration for wildlife habitats by leaving open large single blocks of land. (9) The cluster development plan addresses compatibility with existing and planned uses on adjacent public and private property. Buffering of incompatible uses will be required through landscaping and/or site design and public access through the cluster development plan must be provided to public recreational areas. (10) If farm animals are intended to be allowed within the area, the cluster development plan must indicate the portions of the area reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas from surrounding uses. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of August, A.D. 1986, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of September, A.D. 1986. 0 ayor A:"TEST: City Clerk 1986. Passed and adopted on final reading this 2nd day of September, A.D. ayor ATTEST: City Clerk 11 f