HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOEL ANNEXATION & ZONING - 58-87, A - REPORTS - FIRST READINGAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Items Related to the Noel Annexation and Zoning.
Y N �!
It( u/
6-0 S -�
ITEM NUMBER: 36 a-b
DATE: February 21, 1989
STAFF: Ken Waido
Lv6>�✓
t • (�•f i �lti'�1 �5,,,�d
3. V1.4,,tf ZjA,,j
`t. l 4'R µslorta t&-1
5 Tvqu5) t d$4 ?
RECOMMENDATION: --
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading. The 69� uc eti
Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the annexation Q�Lrty
and requested zonings. ow ark
-to Jv 7- e-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
2- tlW�
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 6, 1989 Annexing
Approximately 287.5 Acres Known as the Noel Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 7, 1989 Zoning Approximately Y'kofe4V
100.0 Acres of the Noel Annexation into the R-L-P Low Density Planned -loApo de
Residential District and Approximately 187.5 Acres into the R-F
Foothills Residential District. �Ve y-WW 4.
On January 3, Council adopted by a vote of 6-0 Resolution 89-3 Finding
G4aajL
Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Noel
Annexation. On February 7, 1989, these items were tabled to this date to
allow resolution of a potential conflict of interest situation.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 287.5525 acres located g�
west of Overland Trail and north of West Prospect Road (extended). Af'e
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 Zv�rKy
Planned Residential for the eastern portion of the property; and is further a�
conditioned by specific density 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 S�fz
135 West Swallow Rd. 253 Grey Rock Rd.
Fort Collins, CO Laporte, CO J140t,5
City of Fort Collins
Larimer County Planning Commission Recommendation:
On January 18, 1989, the Larimer County Planning Commission reviewed the
City's Annexation Impact Report for the Noel Annexation. State of Colorado
-2-
Annexation laws require the City to submit an Annexation Impact Report to
the County. The Planning Commission expresses concern with the intensity
of development allowed under the Noel Annexation Agreement and recommends
the annexation agreement be amended to limit development in a manner
consistent with the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan and the UGA
Agreement. Further background information and comments on the annexation
are contained in the attached January 25, 1989 letter from Mr. Henry R.
Baker, Larimer County Director of Planning.
i DATE: January 3, 1989 I -2- 7ITEM 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 C°lpY-
zone for the western portion of the property; and 2) 100.0105 acres of 70k11k
R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential zone for the eastern portion of the yl4a11
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
-3- 1 ITEM 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
4�h 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-
I 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
DATE: January 3, 1989 ' 1 -5- 1 ITEM NUMBER: 19
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.
&pQ1,9469 cvuwTy ►04,*A 1A4%. cokckcrss�eK ,2t-�osNH.r�w -no7
i
J
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 112 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 00031' 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°3l' 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 78°2523" 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°2523" 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.
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.
•
•
i
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.
Section 4. That this annexation shall be further subject to the
provisions of an annexation agreement between the City and Wallace Noel.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
published this 21st day of February A.D. 1989, and to be presented for
final passage on the 21st day of March, A.D. 1989.
ATTEST:
City Cler
ayor
1989. Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of March, A.D.
---
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
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 'hence
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
•
0 0
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 00031' E 1149.03 feet; thence S 85014'18" 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 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. 0
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. The zoning granted to the property described in Section 1
of this Ordinance is expressly conditioned upon said property
being developed as a planned unit development in accordance with
the Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins.
e. All development proposals for the properties shall also
be subject to all applicable site plan reviews through the
various department review processes of the City.
f. No development on the properties shall extend above the
5200-foot contour line.
g. The maximum height of any structure built on the
properties shall be thirty (30) feet.
•
0
0
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
published this 21st day of February A.D. 1989, and to be presented for
final passage on the 21st day of March, A.D. 1989.
ayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of March, A.D.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
•
ayor
Ma
•
SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS FOR NOEL ANNEXATION REQUEST
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
1. September 29, 1988, letter from James A. Gefroh.
2. Annexation Agreement.
3. October 12, 1988, letter from James M. Davis.
4. November 29, 1988, letter from Wallace R. Noel.
5. December 12, 1988, letter from James A. Gefroh.
6. January 13, 1988, letter from Steve Roy.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
1. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes from the November 21, 1988, meet-
ing.
2. November 11, 1988, letter from R.H. Burnham.
3. November 21, 1988, letter from Alvin L. Miller.
• LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1. January 3, 1989, letter from Jill S. Bennett.
2. January 25, 1989, letter from Henry R. Baker.
STAFF WRITTEN RESPONSES TO CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS
I. January 3, 1989, memorandum from Tom Peterson.
2. January 3, 1989, memorandum from Steve Roy.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND REPORT
•
! 0
APPLICANTS REQUEST 0
1. September 29, 1988 letter from James A Gefroh
2. Annexation Agreement
3. October 12, 1988 letter from James M. Davis
4. November 29, 1988 letter from Wallace R. Noel
5. December 12, 1988 letter from James A. Gefroh
6. January 13, 1989 letter from Steve Roy 0
r�
u
0
•
September 29, 1988
Mr. Ken Waido
Planning 6 Development
City of Fort Collins
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: NOEL ANNEXATION
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Dear Mr. Waido:
c4i
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(303) 223-7335
This letter will serve as our reintroduction of the Petition for Annex-
ation regarding the 287± acre Noel property located west of Overland
Trail in Fort Collins.
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 recommend that Staff support
our annexation/donation concept.
Simply, the proposal is as 7ollows:
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
•
•
0
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:
1. 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 loV 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 1* be heard at the October meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Board to bring this matter forward as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
GlFROH HATTMAN INC
J James sA. Gefroh
Pres'dent
m
enc.
cc: Steve Burkett
Mike Davis
Tim Hasler
Linda Hopkins
Wallace Noel
•
171
•
�� ...i-]�j�. �'"T .� emu"•' _L� •
i.ce c: zhe
October 12, 1988
Mr. Wallace Noel
253 Gray Rock Road
LaPorte, 00 80535
Dear Mr. Noel:
This is in response to a September 21, 1988 letter from Mr. James A.
Gefroh, President, Gefroh Hattman, Inc. addressed to Mr. Ken Waido of the
City Planning Department concerning the Noel Annexation. As a result of a
meeting between you and staff of the Planning Department, at which I
attended, it was agreed that staff would work with your representative, Mr.
Gefroh, to be in a position to present your proposal to the City Plannirq
and Zoning Board on October 21, 1988 with possible Council action in
November.
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.
(al LaPorte A emk! • f'.O. Boy ;,So • Fort Collins, CO 50�22-0SO • (303) ?? I-iiool
0 0
In concept your orepcsal is logical and reasonable. The City's scat=_:i
objective is to oreser,e the fcct-tills above the 5200 foot elevation.'.',cur
proosal would acclish this goal if accented by the Cit.; Council after
revip=,ew and rec--rm�esciaticn by the Planny g an Zoning Board.
The amount of density belcd the 52CO elevation <,as discussed with no
definitive conclusion reached other than tte Land Development Guidance
System see- ed to be the logical and :-cost protective approach to be taken.
However, the :oothills Policy precludes the application or 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 rests
with the City Council. The first test of your proposal will come frcm t;,e
Planning and Zoning Board. We did not nor can we guarantee the outcome of
this public hearing and decision maki-= 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,
Janes M. Davis
Cirector of Development Services
cc: City Manager
Director of Planning
Economic Development Administrator
•
•
•
NOEL & COMPANY
0 375 E HORSETOOTH • SHORES 3, SUITE 201 • FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80525 - (303) 225 0168
November 29, 1988
Fort Collins City Council
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: NOEL ANNEXATION 6 ZONING
r58-87
To The Honorable Ed Stoner, Mayor
Bob Winokur, Assistant Mayor
Larry Estrada
Jerry Horak
Susan Kirkpatrick
Chuck Mabry
Loren Maxey
Over the past several years and most recently over the last several months I have been work-
ing to implement a plan to develop my property that is both beneficial to the City and my-
self. The plan, as worked out with City Planning Staff, outlines a proposal to annex my
property located west of Overland Trail. The property lies between the existing Colorado
State University Equine Center to the North and the existing Miller developed multi -family
housing to the South. My property totaling 287 acres was presented with a Staff recommen-
dation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Board on Monday, November 21, 1988.
This letter is a formal protest of the way the Planning and Zoning arrived at a decision of
denial (6-0) as well as the overall conduct of the meeting in general and, in particular,
the conduct of the members Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, and Lloyd Walker.
Since this is an annexation, the City Council has final authority regarding the matter so
an appeal cannot be filed. I feel compelled to document and call to your attention abuses
directed at me, my consultant, and the proposal which was presented in good faith and with
your City Staff recommendation of approval. I have to say that I have never before been
treated with such total lack of respect especially from a public service board. The pro-
test includes the following allegations:
I. 1 believe that the decision was arbitrary and done without taking into account evi-
dence presented by Staff and the applicant. The Board chose to ignore the basic foun-
dation of the goals and objectives set forth in the City's Land Use Policies Plan adopt-
ed in 1979 and actually stated that this particular property has no right to identify
with the City's basic comprehensive Land Use Policies Plan.
I believe the Board to be in error in its finding that the ''Foothills Policy'' is ex-
empt from the City's basic goals and objectives for land use. I find it hard to be-
lieve that my property has such profound impact on the City as a whole that the Plan-
ning and Zoning Board chooses to set it aside and not allow it to be judged as other
properties might be judged.
0
NOEL & COMPANY
V5 E HORSE TOOT fI - Si CHC11 .I :UIIE '01 - FORT COLLINS COLORADO 80525 - (303) 2250168 is
Fort Collins City Council
November 29, 1988
Page 2
2. 1 was appalled at the pompous attitudes of both Mr. Kern and Mr. Walker. Their rude-
ness and self-serving remarks were unjustified and unbecoming of a person in the posi-
tion of dealing with the public. I would remind Council that the members of the
Planning and Zoning Board are not there for their self -edification, but that they are
there to serve the public and not put themselves above their peers. Mr. Kern's ''bully-
ing" conduct toward City Staff and other Board members who were trying to comprehend
the complexities of this proposal had a misleading affect on the outcome of the meeting.
The "self-serving" attitude displayed by Mr. Walker is totally abusive of his powers
as a Planning and Zoning Board member. Mr. Walker questioned as to "Why was he even
looking at this and wondered how the proposal got this far?"
As a citizen and property owner, I have an undeniable right to be heard. I resent Mr.
Walker declaring that the Staff should screen projects to his satisfaction prior to
his review. I submit that Staff found this project to be in conformance to City goals
and objectives and recommended approval of the same. Mr. Walker may choose to vote
against this proposal for whatever reason he may have, but no one should be denied
their rights because Mr. Walker does not want to be bothered.
3. Laurie O'Dell completely lost control of the meeting in that we, as applicants, were
not allowed to rebut or clarify misleading allegations made by the Millers (adjacent is
property owners) or Board members themselves. Due process relative to previously es-
tablished "Rules of Procedure" were ignored by O'Dell. Our lack of opportunity to
refute misleading comments made by Board members weighed on the outcome of the vote.
4. After the Board meeting we were made aware of a letter submitted by Robert Burnham
representing Colorado State University to all Planning and Zoning Board members just
prior to the meeting. This letter was not identified publically during the meeting
nor did Colorado State University speak at the meeting. It appears that every effort
was made during the meeting to hide the existence of the letter. First of all, Mr.
Kern, who is employed by CSU, should have excused himself due to conflict of interest
pertaining to the property proposal. The letter reveals that CSU has a priority in-
terest in acquisition of this property to add to its Foothill's collection. They
indicate that the Foothills are a finite University resource and that use of Foothills'
lands by others should be denied.
I submit that Mr. Kern is in question as to whether his actions are in the best inter-
est of the City of Fort Collins or are they that of his employer, Colorado State Univer-
sity?
5. It was stated that the "Foothills Zone" was created to "control" my property. This
statement made by an adjacent property owner was not reputed by the Board during the
meeting, but was upheld by the Board. I am compelled to explore as to what "control"
the City means to have in light of the fact that most of the property along the Foot-
hills immediate to my property is in the control of Colorado State University.
0
•
•
NOEL & COMPANY
375 E. HORSETOOTH - SHORES 3, SUITE 201 - FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 - (303) 225 0168
Fort Collins City Council
November 29, 1988
Page 3
Ms. O'Dell commented that her decision to deny is due to her belief that the Foothills
has a fragile, sensitive environment to protect and that high density development
should not be allowed. She fails to address the fact that CSU can do whatever it wants
and without any concern for the public welfare and safety. CSU seeks no City approvals
nor contributes to any public improvements. CSU admits,in the letter submitted to the
Planning and Zoning Board of which O'Dell had a copy during the meeting, that it not
only intended to fill in the Foothills with concentrated, nonresidential research and
experimentation uses, but that these uses are high intensity in nature and develop
animal waste odors, blowing dust, noise, and seasonal insect infestations and produce
less -than -desirable air quality. How can O'Dell be really concerned about the sensi-
tive nature of the Foothills knowing full well what CSU intends to do with its prop-
erties? She cited higher densities as not appropriate for the Foothills, our devel-
opment potential would amount to two units per acre overall.
6. At one point in the meeting, Mr. Kern alluded to the fact that Mr. Dave Edwards, who
had excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest, would also vote to deny
the proposal. His statement was truly out of order, misleading, and in poor taste.
7. 1 find it obviously discriminatory for Planning and Zoning to approve the Stuart prop-
erty, an almost identical rezoning of a like.piece of property,in late 1987 on the same
street, in the same urban growth area, and even closer to the 5200 foot elevation than
my property. We have to ask ourselves the question, "Is it because we are contiguous
to CSU?" Unlike the Stuart property which has no surrounding urban density, my property
is surrounded on three sides by higher densities than we are requesting.
In summary, I feel that the Board totally ignored competent evidence in support of the pro-
ject by Staff and the applicant. It is my opinion that the Board was grossly out of order
in its rudeness and actions, and failed to conduct a fair and impartial hearing.
Furthermore, due to the complete misconduct of members Mr. Kern, Mr. Walker, and Ms.
O'Dell, I call for their immediate dismissal from the Board. Mr. Kern's pompous, comedic,
rude attitude and apparent conflict of interest; Mr. Walker's self-serving position; and
Ms. O'Dell's complete lack of fairness to me should not be allowed or have a place in a
public setting or board.
In closing all we ask of the City Council is a fair and impartial judgment based on recent
decisions such as the Stuart property. We do not feel that Colorado State University's
objectives should have a bearing or interfere with a private citizen's right to develop
his property.
Respectfully,
Wallace R. Noel
kam
cc: M. Davis, L. Hopkins, T. Peterson'✓
•
December 12, 1988
Mayor Ed Stoner
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:
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(303) 223-7335
On January 3, 1989, you will be reviewing the proposed Noel annexation.
This annexation consists of 287 acres located 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:
1. 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,
�r
J meGef�
resid nt
km
•
•
•
►.J �11 Lei u �J
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-
crty 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.
2. 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 dcvclopmcnt. 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. Building height. The maximum height of any structure built on the
Property shall be thirty (30) feet.
I1. Assigns. As used herein, the term "the Owner" shall also mean anv 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.
12. 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 @MLov I*
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. Yaul Eckman
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
) 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:
•
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
U
Citv Attornev
Citv of Fort Collins
Mr. Wallace R. Noel
Noel & Company
375 East Horsetooth
Shores 3, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Annexation Procedure
Dear Mr. Noel:
January 13, 1989
Mayor Stoner has asked that I respond to your inquiry about
the change in procedure that occurred at the Council meeting on
January 3, 1989, with regard to the Council's consideration of
your petition for annexation.
The City Code provides that the City's procedure for annex-
ation comply with the provisions of State statute. That statu-
tory procedure states, in relevant part, that, upon receipt of an
annexation petition, the governing body shall first consider
whether the petition complies with the requirements of the sta-
tute and, if so, shall then consider whether the proposed annexa-
tion itself complies with the various requirements pertaining to
contiguity, community of interest, etc. The statute next pro-
vides that, upon passage of the resolution finding substantial
compliance, a hearing be held no less than thirty days nor more
than sixty days after the effective date of the resolution to
address the merits of the annexation question. Notice of the
hearing must be published, with the first publication being at
least thirty days prior to the hearing. Finally, the statute
further provides that the zoning ordinance may be addressed by
Council at any time after the passage of the resolution.
The statute does not otherwise dictate the timing of Coun-
cil's consideration of the resolution and ordinances. Accord-
ingly, the City has in the past chosen a procedure which helps to
accelerate the process, i.e., the Council considers the com-
pliance resolution on the same date as the first reading of the
annexation and zoning ordinances. Under this procedure, the
second reading of the ordinance occurs on the date of the hear-
ing.
This procedure works effectively so long as the hearing
does, in fact, take place prior to any final Council action on
the annexation ordinance. However, when there is a perceived
controversy relating to a proposed annexation (which emerges
either from the Planning & Zoning Board recommendation, from
•
300 LaPorte .venue • F. O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 805L-0580 • (303) 221-6320
E
Mr. ;ialiace-R.. i4ee-r
January 13, 1989
Page 2
public input to Council or from Council discussion on first
reading), I am of the opinion that Council should not address the
annexation ordinance at all until the statutorily required hear-
ing is held. As a result, at the last Council meeting, I recom-
mended that the first reading of the annexation ordinance be
postponed until the date of the hearing.
I recall your concerns that the postponement of the first
reading might have prejudiced your position because of the possi-
bility that parties opposed to the annexation may appear at the
hearing. Please bear in mind that, even if the ordinance had
been heard and adopted on first reading, the actual passage of
the ordinance could not have occurred until second reading, after
the hearing. Thus, except for a possible two -week delay in learn-
ing the final outcome of this matter, the change in procedure
should not work to your detriment. I do, however, genuinely
regret the confusion of the moment.
Please let me know if you have additional questions regard-
ing the City's procedure in this matter. I hope that the above
explanation addresses your questions about the events on Janu-
ary 3 and the reasons underlying my recommendation to Council.
SJR:sam
CC: Ed Stoner, Mayor
•
Very truly yours, .
Step n J. Roy
City Attorney
Bob Winokur, Assistant Mayor
Larry Estrada, Councilmember
Gerry Horak, Councilmember
Susan Kirkpatrick, Councilmember
Chuck Mabry, Councilmember
Loren Maxey, Councilmember
Steve Burkett, City Manager
Mike Davis, Development Services Director
Tom Peterson, Planning Director
•
• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
1. P & Z Minutes
2. November 11, 1988 letter from R.H. Burnham
3. November 21, 1988 letter from Alvin L. Miller
0
0
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.
,lcmbcr Klataske asked if there was room for a frontage type road I rom Kcn-
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 Waldo 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. Fie
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 l 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
me foothills were meant to be.
He did not think that anyone looked at Overland Trail as being the beginning
of the foothills. He said that when you looked at the terrain, directly west of
Overland Trail, it was not foothills, but similar to the property on the east
side of Overland. Looking to the west, we find property which was more in
keeping with what we, the population of Fort Collins, perceive as the foothills,
which was more specifically, the Dakota Hogback and further back, the true
Rockies. He said given the foothills line of being, what they believe, as closer
to a 5,200 mark and that the surrounding land uses were urban in use and
therefore, the applicants were justified in requesting that the lower (elevation)
property be zoned R-L-P.
The applicants agreed with staff that the upper portion be zoned RF. He
stated that overriding the annexation request. was the annexation agreement,
which would set the basic format as to how the development would occur on
the property. In summary, 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 the south 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
lint 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 greatest density
along Overland Trail and less density as one approached the 5,200 level. He
stated that the uppermost portion of the property would not contain any
housing at all, and will remain a permanent part of the open space. He said
the 132 units would be on the RLP portion as it's overall development density,
which would allow up to 532 units in that zone. The 55 acres would contain
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, pertained to the
type of development they proposed. He stated the development was closer to
the downtown and services than were most development in the south. He said
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.
r-�
•
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 Cit} land use policics 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
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 oer acre and shall not be allowed in the UGA.
Ile 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. He pointed out. 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-
�: tool for t'-:e foothills area, '.ct ,vas the ;ystcm whereby all other !and 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. lie 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. Waldo 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-
lion. Elc 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 at
City and the County which were clustered togetherasfoothills ked by the
were eventually added into the UGA. He said each of these property and
es
essentially separate, each was unique not only in terms of location obut t�alsowas n
surruuuuing 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
analvsis 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-
mcn.tcd in the. same fashion as the annexation agreement, as.was done by Stcr-
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.
Waido 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 1 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
•
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 City's latest
%vater tank and they cannot provide services above that elevation, :o the
property was totally undevclopable. He believed that staff f 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 property and
unless strict and enforce regulations to monitor the groundcover use, much of
0 •
•
the place would be destroyed and denuded of all vegetation. He suggested an
environmental impact study be done to determine how much livestock. :f 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 Citv to clean their side of the fence. He read to the
Board his complaints of the access road and its unrestricted use by dirtbikc
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
an
arterial, a study done of this area found that there are weaker winds near
ars 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
-= ^n that of 'he rest ^f }he 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
per acre is too intense for a region which had been designated as RF and
0.
•
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.
`f-. Waido stated there was Over!^nd Hills Anne-n:',T7 Wh;:-! was the Stuart
Property.
Member Shepard stated that was the property zoned RF, west of what might 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. Waido 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