Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBERLINE ANNEXATION AND ZONING 1.19.1993 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - 40 91, A - REPORTS - SECOND READINGAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER: 36 a-b DATE: December 15, 1992 STAFF: Ken Waido SUBJECT: Items Related to the Timberline Annexation and Zoning RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and suggested zonings. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and suggested zonings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1992, Annexing Approximately 435 Acres, Known as the Timberline Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1992, Zoning Areas within the Timberline Annexation Into Approximately 24 Acres of the I-P, Industrial Park, District and 411 Acres of the T-Transition, District. This is an annexation and zoning of an enclave area approximately 435.237 acres in size located generally east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of East Drake Road, and south and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The suggested zonings include 23.99 acres of the I-P, Industrial Park, District, and 411.247 acres of the T-Transition, District. The property is mostly undeveloped, although located along the west side of Timberline Road are the (vacant) Fort Collins Pipe Co. and ENCOAT (Energy Coatings Co.). Existing commercial signs located on these properties will have to conform to the City's Sign Code at the conclusion of a five year amortization period. OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, Inc. c/o Glen Johnson 3432 Carlton Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Cargill, Inc. P.O. Box 9300 Dept. 5 Minneapolis, MN 55440 General Steel Industries, Inc. c/o Randall, Rudolph & Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 610026 Dallas, TX 75261 Energy Coatings Co., Inc. c/o Randall, Rudolph & Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 610026 Dallas, TX 75261 14027'30" EAST 110.27 FEET, THEN NORTH 88-38'30" EAST 496.94 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel Number: 87191-00-004 BEGINNING AT POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00019'30" WEST 1631.19 FEET AND AGAIN SOUTH 88°38'30" WEST 30 FEET AND AGAIN SOUTH 00019'30" WEST 900.09 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19-7-68, THEN SOUTH 89030'30" WEST 263 FEET, NORTH 00.39' WEST 258.35, SOUTH 89.22' WEST 198.11 FEET, NORTH 00.37' WEST 100 FEET, SOUTH 89.32' WEST 299.64 FEET, NORTH 00.28' 99.76 FEET, SOUTH 69.27' WEST 12.27 FEET, THEN ALONG ARC OF 500 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO LEFT 135.48 FEET, LONG CORD BEARS SOUTH 61°41'16" WEST 135.07 FEET TO POINT ON EAST LINE RAILROAD, THEN ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°24'30" WEST 539.15 FEET, SOUTH 89°30'30" WEST 125 FEET, SOUTH 00°24'30" WEST 339.71 FEET, NORTH 89°30'30" EAST 1024.5 FEET TO POINT ON WEST LINE TIMBERLINE ROAD, THEN ALONG WEST LINE NORTH 00°19'30" EAST 498.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; LESS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00019'30" WEST 1631.19 FEET AND AGAIN SOUTH 88038'30" WEST 30 FEET AND AGAIN SOUTH 00°19'30" WEST 1088.41 FEET FROM NORTHEAST CORNER, THEN SOUTH 89030'30" WEST 1024.06 FEET TO EAST LINE OF RAILROAD, THEN ALONG EAST LINE SOUTH 00°24'30" WEST 300 FEET, NORTH 89°30'30" EAST 1024.48 FEET TO WEST LINE OF TIMBERLINE ROAD, THEN ALONG WEST LINE NORTH 00°19'30" EAST 300 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel Number: 87194-00-025 PARCEL IN EAST 112 OF 19-7-68 BEGINNING AT POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00°19'30" WEST 1631.19 FEET, SOUTH 88-38130" WEST 30 FEET, SOUTH 00019'30" WEST 1088.41 FEET FROM NORTHEAST CORNER, SOUTH 89°30'30" WEST 1024.06 FEET TO EAST LINE OF UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, SOUTH 00024'20" WEST 300 FEET, NORTH 89-30130" EAST 1024.48 FEET TO POINT ON WEST LINE OF TIMBERLINE ROAD, NORTH 00°19'30" EAST 300 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. Section 2. That the Director of Engineering is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning District Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of December, A.D. 1992, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of January, A.D. 1993. ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 5th day of January, A.D. 1993. ATTEST: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ITEM NUMBER: 17 DATE: November 17, 1992 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waido SUBJECT: Items Related to the Timberline Annexation and Zoning. l� G= RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and suggested zonings. The Plar!!!ing and Zoning Board ve.ted 4-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and suggested zonings. EXECUTIV7 SUMMARY: A. Resolution 92-170 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Timberline Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.122 , 1992, Annexing Prop- rty Known as the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, ColLrr,do. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1992, Amending the 70!:ing District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is an annexation and zoning of an enclave area approximately 435.237 ai-res in size located generally east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of East Drake Road, and south and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The suggested zonings include 23.99 acres of the I-P, Industrial Park, District, and 411.247 acres of the T-Transition, District. The property is ni,)stly undeveloped, although located along the west side of Timberline Road are the (vacant) Fort Collins Pipe Co. and (ENCOAT) Energy Coatings Co. Existing commercial signs located on these properties will have to conform to the City's Sign Code at the conclusion of a five year amortization period. OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, Inc. c/o Glen Johnson 3432 Carlton Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Cargill, Inc. P.O. Box 9300 Dept. 5 Minneapolis, MN 55440 ' General Steel Industries, Inc. c/o Randall, Rudolph & Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 610026 Dallas, TX 75261 DATE: November 17, 1992 Energy Coatings Co., c/o Randall, Rudolph P.O. Box 610026 Dallas, TX 75261 Fort Collins Pipe Co. P.O. Box 300 Lone Star, TX 75668 BACKGROUND: 2 ITEM NUMBER: 17 Inc. & Assoc., Inc. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWill AREA, the City will consider and pursue the annexation property in the UGA whon the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The specific wording from the UGA Agreement is as follows: PoliC.V 1.6 That the policy of the City is to consider the annexation of all properties within the unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon as said property becomes eligible for annexation. Agreement 2.10 C The City agrees to pursue involuntary annexation of any undeveloped parcel or parcels, or any undeveloped, partially developed, or developed subdivision, planned unit development, special review case, or any other development approved by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners prior to January 1980, when State statutory requirements for involuntary annexations have been met. The area to be annexed is a county enclave. The following annexations to the City of Fort Collins created the enclave: N: East Prospect Road First Annexation, September 6, 1973. E: Rigdon Farm Annexation, August 16, 1988. East Prospect Road First Annexation, September 6, 1973. S: Blue Spruce Farm Annexation, October 6, 1987. Greenwalt Tenth Annexation, June 21, 1977. Rigdon Farm Annexation, August 16, 1988. W: Union Pacific South Second Annexation, May 17, 1988. This area has thus been eligible for involuntary annexation into the City since August 16, 1991. On September 19, 1991, staff sent a letter to the property owners informing them of the pending annexation, potential zoning district designation, and meeting date of review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff received several questions from Spring Creek Farms, Inc., the largest single property -owner (352 acres) within the annexation. No subsequent contact was made from other the property owners. All property owners were renotified, on September 2, 1992, of the new October 19, 1992, Planning and Zoning hearing date. Mr. Glen Johnson of Spring Creek Farms, Inc., a major farming operation, met with staff and requested information related to pesticide application, stormwater management, ditch maintenance, and the paying of "urban" improvements. Spring Creek Farms, Inc., also owned property which was included in the Harmony No. 4 DATE: November 17, 1992 1 3 M NUMBER: 17 Annexation (1977). At that time, an agreement was reached between Spring Creek Farms Inc., and the City of Fort Collins dealing with farming activities and the payment of special assessments for urban kinds of improvements related to Lhe Harmony No. 4 Annexation. Mr. Johnson has requested that a similar agreemen, be developed related to the Timberline Annexation. Planning staff prepared an agreement for use in conjunction with this annexation (draft copy attached). The City Attorney's office has indicated that because this is an involuntary enclave annexation which the City can accomplish without the consent of the property owner, any agreement to exempt the subject property from future assessments should be supported by some other, independent consideration besides the annexation of the property. In order to provide such consideration, Spring Creek Farms might dedicate arterial street rights -of -way along either or both Drake and Timberline Roads. Staff and Spring Creek Farms have resolved several other issues related to the annexation, including the impacts of farming operations, pesticide applicat;on, and storm drainage fees. Agreement has not been reached with regard to the issues of exemption from the payment of assessments for street improvements; the i I ity to lease lands for hunting; and exemption from City Sales Tax for farming operations. Zoning. The suggested zonings for this annexation include 23.99 acres of the I-P Industrial Park, District, and 411.247 acres of the T-Transition, District. The I-P District designation is for light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses located in proximity to areas zoned for residential use and/or along arterial streets. The sites of Fort Collins Pipe and Energy Coa ing companies are suggested for the I-P zone. The areas to the west of these companies are zoned R-L-P, Low density Planned Residential, and R-P, Planned Residential, and are developed as the Parkwood East Subdivision and the Parkwood East Apartments. Timberline Road is planned to be a major (6-lane) arterial street. Also, located to the west is EPIC and Spring Creek Park. The existing uses would become legal non -conforming uses under the I-P Zone. The existiny uses may continue under the I-P Zone and even expand through the "expansio;i to a non -conforming use process" which requires a hearing by the Planning and Z0,1i:ig Board. New uses will have to conform to the requirements of the I-P Zone or be processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and be reviewed according to the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM (LOGS). These properties •gill probably eventually redevelop with industrial uses which could require greater public scrutiny than the former uses received. The T-Transition, District designation is for properties which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate development. The only uses alliwed within the T Zone are the uses which existed at the time the T Zone was pl-.ced on the properties. The agricultural areas within the annexation, including the properties owned by Spring Creek Farms, Inc., are suggested to be placed into the T Zone. When urban development is proposed on these properties they would have to be rezoned to a zone which allows development. Findings 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. DATE November 17, 1992 �� 4 ITEM NUMBER: 17 I i 2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for anitexa- tion by the City of Fort Collins. ?. On October 6, 1992, the City Council passed a resolution setting forth Lhe intent to annex this property and scheduling a public hearing for the consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances related to the annexation. 4. The requested I-P, Industrial Park, and T, Transition, Zoning Districts are in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and suggested zoning. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on October 19, 1992, voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and suggested zonings. A Copy of the Board's minutes is attached. ■ Io T RL M/y \ lDEC. FA ' \ #n le j+�, (,OUNi�� 9 ••� JAIL �. * )mm i T TIMBERLINE ANNEXATION ITEM: & ZONING NUMBER: 40-91, A P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Member O'Dell asked that from the KFC parking lot there would be access to the King Parcel? Mr. Shepard stated that there was hope to accommodate that opportunity. Member Carroll moved to approve the West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD, Final with the condition recommended by staff and also with a second condition that the previously designed access to the east be reduced to bicycle/pedestrian access only with emergency access for Poudre Fire Authority emergency vehicles only. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked that if the Poudre Fire Authority feels that this access is unnecessary that it should be made as a permanent bicycle/pedestrian access without poles and chains. Mr. Shepard agreed that the access should be made permanent and suggested that "as required" should be added to the second condition of the motion. Member Carroll added "as required" to the second condition of the motion. Member Cottier seconded the addition. The motion to approve carried 4-0. TIMBERLINE ANNEXATION AND ZONING, Use #40-91A Mr. Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed annexation recommending approval. Mr. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the recommendation, for which the Board would consider for City Council, would be whether the property should be annexed. Since it is an enclave annexation it does not need to have any annexation agreement that accompanies it. If an annexation agreement is to accompany an annexation then there needs to be some valuable consideration given to the City by the property owner to support the agreement. Basically, the City would not assess these Special Improvement District Assessments against the property owner. He stated that right-of-way dedication would be something that would support the contract. He stated that the Board should make the recommendation to the Council on the annexation and if an agreement is to be made by the City promising not to levy assessments that the agreement be supported by some valuable consideration flowing to the City. Member Carroll wanted clarification that the City is willing to waive the assessments for improvements and staff felt that was fine? P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Mr. Waido stated that the agreement is worded in such a way that the assessments on any urban improvements would not be made on Spring Creek Farms property until those properties come out of a farming operation and start to develop. They would only delay the period of time when those assessments would be made to the property. Member Carroll stated that if he were to own property to the south or west and does something with it, then normal City policy would be that he would pay part of the improvements and the neighbor to the north cr east would pay the other part. Member Carroll stated that the City Attorney's Office stated that in essence this agreement would be an unsupported promise or such by the City and; therefore, the City ought to get something in return. Mr. Waido agreed with that theory. Member Carroll asked that staff isn't requesting anything in return? Mr. Waido stated that in order to enter the agreement to not assess them for urban improvements, the City needs to receive something. Member Carroll stated that is a legal opinion and that staff is not requesting anything and is simply asking for that on the advice of the attorney's office? Mr. Waido agreed. Mr. Peterson added that there is a history to the property owner's concern. He stated the people who own Spring Creek Farms had been on the outer edges of the City for a number of years. He stated that the owners of this piece of property owned property which was donated to Edora Park and they were tagged with a special assessment when urban development started. Ultimately the area is really on the fringe of urban development in this City. A new High School is being developed to the south and there will be ample water, sewer, electric and road capacity that will be developed, which will force this property out of the farming mode. It is the owners intention to hold onto this property for farming until they are ready to sell. He pointed out that the Special Improvement District would only apply to the property until the use changes from farming. Member Carroll asked if the City would make the provision that without the requirement for the dedication of right-of-way that they do not oppose the annexation? Mr. Waido stated that they do not object to the annexation provided that the agreement covers the stipulations for which it does. He stated that the owners are still not very happy with the hunting aspect or the sales tax aspect. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Member Cottier asked that at some point in the future when the urban improvement charges are assessed then why is anything being required in return now. She felt that the dedication of right- of-way seemed to be a pretty large contribution on their part to just get delayed charges. Mr. Eckman responded that in the dedication of all that right-of-way he did not think that it was legally necessary that it all be dedicated. He stated that it was the feeling that something of value be given to support the contract by way of consideration. Member Cottier asked if one dollar would suffice? Mr. Eckman stated that would be valuable consideration. The issue is the time value of money because eventually the assessments would go against some urbanized use there. The fear is if the City loads up some other property with assessments than that person who was assessed would legitimately complain. If the City takes the assessment on itself than the taxpayers could legitimately complain that there was no public purpose to support the City's taking on that debt. Mr. Eckman felt that without something being received by the City to support that public purpose than the contract could be challenged. Member O'Dell asked that at the point when they decide to develop some portion of the property than they would be required to do some road improvements and this whole condition would be null and void? Mr. Waido stated that it may not even come into effect that if there is no assessment on the property and they just have a development requirement to improve the street as part of development then the whole discussion could be mute. Member O'Dell asked that only in a situation where the need for Timberline Road be expanded and the need for the right-of-way proceeded the development of this property this condition would then go into effect? Mr. Waido responded that some type of improvement within existing right-of-way which would need to be put into a special improvement district verses a capital improvement program. Member O'Dell asked that a similar arrangement was made with this property owner in the past that this contract has come up or has this happened in any other parts of the City or Annexations? Mr. Waido replied that it is just the fact that these property owners have had experience with several conditions of this sort and seek to protect themselves. DATE: December 15, 1992 . 2 ITEM NUMBER: 36 Fort Collins Pipe Co. P.O. Box 300 Lone Star, TX 75668 BACKGROUND: The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to the 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 consider and pursue the annexation property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The specific wording from the UGA Agreement is as follows: Policy 1.6 That the policy of the City is to consider the annexation of all properties within the unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon as said property becomes eligible for annexation. Agreement 2.10 C The City agrees to pursue involuntary annexation of any undeveloped parcel or parcels, or any undeveloped, partially developed, or developed subdivision, planned unit development, special review case, or any other development approved by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners prior to January 1980, when State statutory requirements for involuntary annexations have been met. At the November 17, Council meeting, the Council requested additiohal background in UG eemen The goals of the UGA inc u e: to de ine areas w ere urban densities and uses are appropriate; to achieve the orderly development of land within such areas; to achieve common urban design standards; to encourage the annexation of land; and to minimize the provision of urban services by Larimer County. The City and County have agreed ... ... to establish an urban growth area surrounding the City of Fort Collins and that the UGA is appropriate for the location and development of urban land uses and urban residential densities. ... to establish a Fort Collins UGA Review Board to act as the single recommending body to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners concerning development applications within the unincorporated portion of the UGA. . that all County Regulations and procedures apply to development proposals within the UGA. that the City is not obligated to annex developments approved by the County after January 1988 which do not conform to UGA urban development standards. the County agrees ... to limit urban development outside the UGA to areas designated as Municipal Expansion Areas, Employment Center Reserves, and Urban Development Areas on the Larimer County Land Use Plan. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Member O'Dell asked that it is the Board's responsibility to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of the annexation from a land use stand point or whether it meets the rules of the State? Mr. Waido stated that a recommendation from the Board is appropriate. Member O'Dell asked if it was really the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Board to make these kind of decisions? Mr. Peterson replied that it was appropriate for the Board to comment on the recommendation made by staff, but it is ultimately City Council that needs to make the decision on whether the conditions of an annexation agreement are appropriate. Member Carroll moved to recommend to City Council the Timberline Annexation and Zoning for approval. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented that if staff and the landowner are in agreement that the assessment fees should not be paid until the property is assessed that is fine. He would suggest that if such an agreement was entered into perhaps the consideration coming from the landowner would be that he would not object to the annexation. Member O'Dell felt that because of the way the law is written on enclave annexations, it is not reasonable to say that the City would give people special consideration if they put up a fuss. She felt that what the City Attorney is recommending is more reasonable and equitable and that Council should look at some kind of trade or bargain to be reached with the landowners. Member Carroll stated that his understanding was that the agreement was a perfectly reasonable request and had no problem with it from a practical standpoint. Member Cottier felt that this project is beyond the Board's normal involvement and obviously it is an enclave and meets all the State laws for annexation. She stated that she does not feel comfortable in negotiating some agreement with respect to waiving future urban improvement charges. If the City feels that to be necessary it would be appropriately done by City Council and the legal department. The motion to recommend approval carried 4-0. Co,�Lmunity Planning and Environme,,,ai Services Planning Department 4. City of.fort Collins October 12, 1992 Mr. Glen Johnson 3432 Carlton Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Johnson, The purpose of this letter is to respond to your September 20, 1992, letter requesting additional provisions be included within the Annexation Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Spring Creek Farms, Inc., regarding Spring Creek Farms' land to be included within the Timberline Annexation. In addition, this letter will also include comment's from the City Attorney's office regarding your request of a waiver from the payment of urban improvements as long as your land is farmed. I will repeat your request and discuss how it is, or is not, included within the Annexation Agreement. 1. The usual farming and feeding procedures will not be interrupted by the City, including ditch burning, pesticide and herbicide applications by ground or air, and all noises, dust and odors associated with agriculture and feedlot operations. A new section, #3, has been added to the Agreement identifying the farming and feedlot operations as "existing uses" on the property to be annexed. The existing uses would include all normal noises, dust, and odors associated with agriculture and feedlot operations. The Agreement does not address ditch burning and pesticide and herbicide applications because, as my February 6, 1992, letter to you indicated, such items are currently covered by the Fire Code of the Poudre Fire Authority. The Fire Code is the same for the City and for the Fire District. With regards to the burning of ditches, the area proposed for annexation is mostly outside the open ditch burning restriction area so ditches can be burned without a permit. However, as the area develops it will be included within the restricted area and a permit will be required. Since the Fire Code applies equally to properties outside and inside the city limits, I made no changes to the Agreement regarding the issues of ditch burning and pesticide applications. 2. Irrigation practices must not be hindered by any City procedures. The City notifies ditch companies of any pending development proposal which may have an impact on their irrigation systems. /oi wrtn Loueoe Avenue • t'.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80322-0380 • (303) 221-6730 Ditch companies must sign -off on all development proposal utility plans submitted to the City. This standard operating procedure, I believe, protects irrigation practices. Therefore, I have not made •any changes to the Agreement with regard to this issue. 3. Protection of our hunting privileges and the right to lease hunting rights as it has been in the past. Section 17-101 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins makes it illegal for anyone to discharge a firearm, bow and arrow, or any type of weapon inside of the city limits. An Agreement could not be signed by the City containing provisions which are contrary to 17-101. Therefore, unfortunately, the ability to lease hunting rights on your property would have to cease after annexation. 4. We shall be consulted about any future master planning of lands involved. In preparing new policies for the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City notifies and includes all property -owners which may be affected by such policies. For any development proposal, the City notifies all property -owners within 500 feet of the proposal as a matter of practice. Larger notification distances are used when more intense projects are proposed. Since these are standard operating procedures, I did not make any additions to the Agreement regarding this issue. 5. A special permit, good until total development, will be issued exempting Farms and operators from paying city sales tax on goods and services for normal operations. Section 25-73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins allows exemptions from City Sales Tax on certain farm related goods and services, including purchases of feed, feed supplements, and drugs for livestock or poultry, purchases of seeds, plants, and fertilizers for commercial farming and ranching, purchases of livestock and poultry, and any existing automotive vehicles and farm machinery. Other goods and services are taxable including purchases of automotive vehicles, leases or rentals of vehicles or equipment, and purchases of machinery and parts (these do not apply for farm machinery used on property outside of city limits). As in the case of firearms with Section 17-101 cited above, an Agreement could not be signed by the City containing provisions which are contrary to 25-73, therefore, I did not make any changes to the Agreement regarding City Sales Tax. 6. Storm drainage fees, park fees and any other city imposed fees will not be assessed to any portion of the undeveloped lands and improvements. As you know, Sections 1 and 2 of the Agreement relate to the waiver of the assessment of street fees related to urban development. The City Attorney's office indicates that in order to grant this request the City would need to receive something in return as a "quid pro quo" to the City to justify the waiver. The City Attorney's office suggests perhaps a dedication of arterial street rights -of -way along the perimeter on the annexed property to fulfill the "quid pro quo." A new sentence has been added to Section 1 to cover this requirement. As indicated in my February 6, letter, farm land is treated as undeveloped land and monthly storm drainage fees are not charged. A house located on farm land would be considered a typical single- family house with an 8,000 square foot lot and 40% impervious area for fee calculation purposes. Park fees and other such fees are "development" fees collected at the time of building permit requests. If a building permit is requested, the applicable fees will be assessed by the City. Again, since the request relates to standard operating procedures I did not make any changes to the Agreement regarding fees. I have attached a new draft version of the Annexation Agreement for your review. If you have further comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. City staff, including Paul Eckman from the City Attorney's office, is willing to meet with you and discuss any provisions of the draft annexation agreement. Sincerely, Kenneth G. Waido Chief Planner AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 19921 by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, party of the first part, hereinafter sometimes designated as the "City", and SPRING CREEK FARMS, INC., a Colorado corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter sometimes designated as "Owner". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is in the process of annexing certain lands known as the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Owner owns approximately 352 acres located in Sections 19, 20, and 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more fully described in "Attachment A", and; WHEREAS, a portion of such lands of the Owner is included in the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Owner intends at this time to continue to utilize its lands as a farm and not to develop said lands for urban uses until some time in the future; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the owner should not be required to install road improvements or other improvements relating to the ultimate development of said lands or to pay for the same until the Owner's lands develop. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the terms of the within agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees not to attempt to levy a special assessment against the lands of the Owner on account of street improvements or other improvements relating to urban development adjoining the Owner's lands so long as the Owner's lands continue to be occupied as a farm and are not developed for more urban uses. The Owner agrees to dedicate arterial street right-of-ways along the perimeter of the annexed property to fulfill the City's agreement. 2. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to improve roads adjoining the lands of the Owner, the City may install such improvements but will not assess the cost of the same pertaining to the Owner's lands until the Owner begins development of its lands. In such event, the cost which would normally have been assessed against the Owner's lands may be paid by the City and the Owner agrees to reimburse the City for its share of such costs at such time as the Owner develops its lands for urban purposes. The parties agree that the City may require payment of such amount as a condition of approving a subdivision plat, planned unit development, or other development of the Owner's lands for urban purposes. 3. The City agrees that the Owner's land is currently used •for farming and livestock feedlot operations. These uses shall be considered the legal uses as existing on the property at date the property was placed into the T, Transitional, Zoning District. The existing uses shall include all normal noises, dust, and odors associated with agricultural and feedlot operations. 4. The terms of this agreement shall pertain to all of the Owner's lands located in Sections 19, 20, and 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described in "Attachment All. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement the day and year first hereinabove written. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk SPRING CREEK FARMS, INC. By President ATTEST: Secretary "Attachment All Parcel Number: 87194-00-001 E 1/2 19-7-68 LESS THE FOL: 35 ACRES M/L TO CITY OF FTC, 32 ACRES UP RR, 10 ACRES C & S RR, 4 ACRES DRY CREEK, TR IN NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 19-7-68 LOCATED E OF C & S RR R/W & S OF SPRING CREEK DITCH & LESS THE FOL BKS & PGS: 1162-257, 1401-354 & 355, 1488-208, 1382-158 & 1700-433, 1913-547, 2050-178 & LESS 88048248. Parcel Number: 87203-00-006 A TRIANG PAR LYING IN SW COR OF NW OF NW, LYING S & W OF C & S RR R/W, 20-7-68 & SW OF NW, LESS 2 1/2 ACRE RR, W 1/2 OF SW, LESS 8 ACRE RD & DITCH, 20-7-68 LESS POR IN BK 1906 PG 667. Parcel Number: 87204-00-013 SE, E 1/2 SW. SE NW 20-7-68, EXC THAT PART LYING N & E OF C & S RR. Parcel Number: 87290-00-006 N 1/2 OF NW 29-7-68. SPRING CREEK FARMS 3432 Carlton Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 September 20, 1992 City of Fort Collins Planning Department Mr Kenneth Waido P 0 Box 580 Fort Collins. CC 80522 Dear Mr Waido; In a letter to us dated September 19. 1991. you re- quested our voluntary participation in an annexation of 350+ acres of our lands into an area to be known as the Timberline Annexation. Since that original letter we en- gaged in some periodic discussions regarding this proced- ure and have advised both you and Mr Petersen of our various concerns. It has been established by you that upon our voluntary annexation the City would sign an agreement similar to the one they signed on November 15, 1977 when other property we owned was annexed by Fort Collins. It is our wish, since such a large acreage is concerned, that this agree- ment be broadened to include the following: 1. The usual farming and feeding procedures will not be interrupted by the City, including ditch burning, pesticide and herbicide appli- cations by ground or air. and all noises, dust and odors associated with agriculture and feedlot operations. 2. Irrigation practices must not be hindered by any City procedures. 3. Protection of our hunting privileges and the right to lease hunting rights as it has been in the past. 4. We shall be consulted about any future master - planning of lands involved. 5. A special permit, good until total develop- ment, will be issued exempting Farms and oper- ators from paying City sales tax on goods and services needed for normal operations. 6. Storm drainage fees, park fees and any other city imposed fees will not be assessed to any portion of the undeveloped lands and improve- ments. page 2 I think you will find most of these items were discussed by Paul Eckman and our attorney, Gene Fischer. in July and August 1988. It was Mr Eckman's opinion at that time these things could be included in an annexation agreement. Our demands for no city real estate tax will no longer be pursued. Very truly yours, SPRING CREEK FARMS Glen A Johnson, Partner cc: Calvin Johnson Gene E Fischer CoULmunity Planning and Environme,,,al Services Planning Department City of. Fort Collins August 24, 1992 Spring Creek Farms c/o Glen Johnson 3432 Carlton Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Johnson, Earlier this year we discussed several issues related to the inclusion of property owned by Spring Creek Farms Inc., in the area known as the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. On February 12, at your request, I forwarded a copy of a 1977 agreement between the City and Spring Creek Farms concerning assessments of improvements prior to the development of property owned by Spring Creek Farms contained within the Harmony Annexation No. 4. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that City staff will begin processing the Timberline Annexation. This process requires a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board and another hearing before the City Council for a final decision. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing will be on Monday October 19, at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers of City Hall West located at 300 Laporte Avenue. The City Council hearing dates will be November 3 and 17 also starting at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Staff will present to the Board and Council a similar agreement pertaining to the Timberline Annexation, a draft of which is attached to this letter (and is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, /" 4/444 Kenneth G. Waido Chief Planner CC. Mr. Calvin Johnson 2600 S. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80525 _ai Aortn �-ouege Avenuu • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80 2'_-0=80 • (303) 221-670 AF E December 15, 1992 3 Il i NUMBER: 36 ... not to accept any development application for a property which is eligible for voluntary annexation to the City. ... the City Council reserves the right to review and comment on development proposals which propose waiver requests to the UGA Phasing Criteria. ... to establish a Park Fee within the UGA equivalent to the Park Fee collected by the City. ... to establish a Drainage Basin Fee within the UGA consistent with Drainage Basin Fee collected within the drainage basin in the City. ... that the City may annex outside the UGA. ... to require a binding Annexation Agreement as a condition of approval of any development proposal within the UGA not eligible for voluntary annexation into the City. The City agrees ... ... the Board of Commissioners may waive UGA Phasing Criteria for "in - fill" development proposals. ... to consider the annexation of any parcel in the UGA when the parcel qualifies according to State law for voluntary annexation. ... to pursue involuntary annexation of areas when State law qualifications have been met. ... to apply its Off -Site Street Improvement Policy to developments within the city which have an impact on County roads outside the city. The above agreements represent a series of "trade-offs" between the City Council and County Commissioners related to growth management and the provision of public services within the UGA. It is difficult for staff to gauge the relative importance of specific items in relationship to other items for each elected body. Staff does believe, however, that the City's willingness to annex property within the UGA is a key consideration to the County's continued participation in the UGA Agreement. The area to be annexed is a county enclave. Colorado annexation laws allow a municipality to annex enclave areas (which are areas which are entirely contained within the boundaries of a municipality). An enclave area must be so surrounded for a period of not less than 3 years to become eligible for annexation as an enclave. While State law allows a municipality to annex an enclave, State law does not require a municipality to annex an enclave. Also, a municipality may annex any contiguous portion of an enclave without annexing the entire enclave. The following annexations to the City of Fort Collins created the enclave in question: N: East Prospect Road First Annexation, September 6, 1973. E: Rigdon Farm Annexation, August 16, 1988. East Prospect Road First Annexation, September 6, 1973. S: Blue Spruce Farm Annexation, October 6, 1987. Greenwalt Tenth Annexation, June 21, 1977. Rigdon Farm Annexation, August 16, 1988. DRAFT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1992, 1y, and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municip,41 corporation, party of the first part, hereinafter sometimes designated as the "City", and SPRING CREEK FARMS, INC., a Colorado corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter sometimes designated as "Owner". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is in the process of annexing certain lands known as the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Owner owns approximately 352 acres located in Sections 19, 20, and 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more fully described in "Attachment A", and; WHEREAS, a portion of such lands of the Owner is included in the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Owner intends at this time to continue to utilize its lands as a farm and not to develop said lands for urban uses until some time in the future; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the owner should not be required to install road improvements or other improvements relating to the ultimate development of said lands or to pay for the same until the owner's lands develop. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the terms of the within agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees not to attempt to levy a special assessment against the lands of the Owner on account of street improvements or other improvements relating to urban development adjoining the Owner's lands so long as the Owner's lands continue to be occupied as a farm and are not developed for more urban uses. 2. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to improve roads adjoining the lands of the Owner, the City may install such improvements but will not assess the cost of the same pertaining to the Owner's lands until the Owner begins development of its lands. In such event, the cost which would normally have been assessed against the Owner's lands may be paid by the City and the owner agrees to reimburse the City for its share of such costs at such time as the Owner develops its lands for urban purposes. The parties agree that the City may require payment of such amount as a condition to approving a subdivision plat or other development of the Owner's lands for urban purposes. 3. The terms of this agreement shall pertain to all of the Owner's lands located in Sections 19, 20, and 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more fully 'described in "Attachment All. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement the day and year first hereinabove written. ATTEST: City Clerk THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By City Manager SPRING CREEK FARMS, INC. By ATTEST: President Secretary Development Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins February 12, 1992 Spring Creek Farms C/o Glen A. Johnson 3432 Carlton Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Johnson, Enclosed, as per your request, is a copy of the 1977 agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Spring Creek Farms, Inc., concerning assessments of improvements prior to the development of property owned by Spring Creek Farms. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kenneth G. Waido Chief Planner CC. Mr. Calvin Johnson 2600 S. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80525 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0380 • (303) 2^_1-6750 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 15, 1977 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John E. Arnold, City Manager RE: Agreement relating to Subdivision Improvements for Lands of Spring Creek Farms, Inc. The Harmony Annexation No. 4 includes some of the lands of Spring Creek Farms, Inc., adjoining Harmony Road. This is only a small portion of the lands of this owner, and the owner has expressed concerns that he might be assessed for street improvements or similar subdivision improvements prior to the time he develops his lands and while they are still occupied as a farm. The Council has indicated that it was willing to enter into an agreement that assessments for such improvements would be deferred until such time as these lands were developed. The enclosed agreement has been prepared to express this understanding. The agreement provides that although the City may install such improvements ahead of the development of this property, the amount to be assessed against the Owner would be deferred until development of these lands begins. Recommendation: Administration recommends that the Council approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the same on behalf of the City. 10 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ! day of November, 1977, by and between -THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, party of the first part, hereinafter sometimes designated as the "City", and SPRING CREEK FARMS, INC., a Colorado corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter sometimes designated as "Owner", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is in the process of annexing certain lands known as Harmony Annexation No. 4 to the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Owner owns approximately 304 acres consisting of most of the East 1/2 of Section 32, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, a portion of such lands of the Owner is included in the Harmony Annexation No. 4 to the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Owner intends at this time to continue to utilize its lands as a farm and not to develop said lands for urban uses until some time in the future; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the Owner should not be required to install road improvements or other improve- ments relating to the ultimate development of said lands or to pay for the same until the Owner's lands develop. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the terms of the within agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees not to'a-ttempt to levy a special assessment against the lands of the Owner on account of street improvements or other improvements relating to urban development adjoining the Owner's lands so long as the Owner's lands continue to be occupied as a farm and are not developed for more urban uses. 2. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to improve roads adjoining the lands of the Owner, the City may install such improvements but will not assess the cost of the same pertaining to the Owner's lands until the Owner begins development of its lands. In such event, the cost which would normally have been assessed against the Owner's lands may be paid by the City and the Owner agrees to reimburse the City for its share of such costs at such time as the Owner develops its lands for urban purposes. The parties agree that the City may require repayment of such amount as a condition to approving a subdivision plat or other develop- ment of the Owner's lands for urban purposes. 3. The terms of this agreement shall pertain to all of the Owner's lands located in the East 1/2 of said Section 32, regardless of whether the same are included in the property currently being annexed to the City of Fort Collins. -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement the day and year first hereinabove written. ATTEST: C Yclerk ATTEST: Sgcretary THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COL08ADO By City MAnager J � SPRING CREEK,FARMS! NC� >7L �.L Q .1 l t � 'yy � •r By President -3- Development Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins February 6, 1992 Spring Creek Farms C/o Glen A. Johnson 3432 Carlton Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Johnson, The purpose of this letter is to respond to several questions you raised during a meeting with Mr. Tom Peterson, City of Fort Collins Director of Planning, concerning the inclusion of your property in the proposed Timberline Annexation. Your questions were submitted to Mr. Warren Jones, Fire Marshall for the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA), and to Mr. Bob Smith of the City's Storm Drainage Utility, for review and answers. I will repeat your question and provide their responses. (1) Pesticide application - Does the City have any regulations in regards to the utilization of pesticides in farm operation? With regard to pesticide application, such actions are regulated by the Fire Code which is the same for the City and the Fire District. The Fire Code does not regulate pesticide application if applied in accordance with environmental (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and other related Federal and State laws. The Fire Code does regulate bulk storage of pesticides, but the PFA has never attempted to deal with the end use of pesticides on individual farms. (2) Stormwater management - How is farm land calculated in the formula to determine the amount of storm drainage fees which need to be paid? Farm land is treated as undeveloped land and monthly storm drainage fees are not charged. A house located on farmland would probably be considered a typical single-family residence with an 8,000 square foot lot and 40% impervious area for fee calculation purposes. A feed lot that has barns or farm buildings will have to be viewed as a commercial operation and a determination of impervious areas (buildings, etc.) and pervious areas (fenced in areas, grazing or feeding areas, etc.) determined on a case -by -case basis. If you would like additional information please feel free to call Ms. Dottie Nazarenus at 221-6589. ,oi t%onn o_ouege A%enue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 86;22-0 80 • (303) 221-(,';0 (3) Ditch maintenance - What City, or PFA, regulations apply to the burning of ditches for maintenance purposes? With regard to the burning of ditches, as with the application of pesticides discussed above, such actions are regulated by the Fire Code which is the same for the City and the Fire District. For open burning of ditches, the area proposed for annexation is mostly outside the open burning restriction area so ditches can be burned without a permit. However, as the area develops it will be included within the restricted area and a permit will be required. At that time, all open burning except ditch maintenance will be prohibited. If you have further questions or concerns regarding the Timberline Annexation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, /�-7 Lf/� Kenneth G. Waido Chief Planner CC. Mr. Calvin Johnson 2600 S. County Road 11 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 DATE: December 15, 1992 4 ITEM NUMBER: 36 -"MINI Iti W: Union Pacific South Second Annexation, May 17, 1988. This area has thus been eligible for involuntary annexation into the City since August 16, 1991. On September 19, 1991, staff sent a letter to the property owners informing them of the pending annexation, potential zoning district designation, and meeting date of review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff received several questions from Spring Creek Farms, Inc., the largest single property -owner (352 acres) within the annexation. No subsequent contact was made from other the property owners. All property owners were renotified, on September 2, 1992, of the new October 19, 1992, Planning and Zoning hearing date. Annexation represents the most effective way for the City to guide its own future. Annexation allows the City to increase its land area to accommodate new growth and development and to expand its tax base. Following annexation, the City can manage growth through the application of its land use regulations, including zoning, PUD, sign code, etc., to new development proposals. The City, thus, through annexation acquires the final decision making authority regarding new development proposals. The annexation of property can be a source of additional revenue to the City through the collection of additional property tax, sales and use taxes, licenses, and development fees. The City also provides services to newly annexed areas including, but not limited to, water and sewer utilities, storm drainage management, police protection, A h street maintenance, mass transit, and parks and recreational programs. itv iA {10 %f- Undeveloped property usually does not require a great expansion of City services. i� t1Also, tax revenues generated by vacant property are relatively minimal. yy Staff believes that enclave areas, those areas entirely contained within the boundaries of the City, do have an impact on the provision of City services. Generally, a "hole" in the City's service area creates inefficiencies in City services. Among the most major concerns with enclave areas are questions related to police jurisdiction and road maintenance. When parts of a street or road are inside and outside the city limits, the City and County generally enter into a "maintenance agreement" indicating which entity will maintain the street (fix pot holes, plow snow, etc.). Obviously, when an area is annexed, the City absorbs the maintenance responsibility for any roads included within the annexation. Similarly, when parts of a street or road are inside and outside the city limits, or an area includes properties both inside and outside the city limits, law enforcement jurisdictional problems may arise. The most serious jurisdictional problem relates to responses to emergency situations. The communications center must relate to a map in order to dispatch a response from the correct agency, either the City's Police Department or the County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Glen Johnson of Spring Creek Farms, Inc., a major farming operation, met with staff and requested information related to pesticide application, stormwater management, ditch maintenance, and the paying of "urban" improvements. Spring Creek Farms, Inc., also owned property which was included in the Harmony No. 4 Annexation (1977). At that time, an agreement was reached between Spring Creek Farms Inc., and the City of Fort Collins dealing with farming activities and the payment of "urban" improvements related to the Harmony No. 4 Annexation. Mr. Johnson has requested that a similar agreement be developed related to the December 15, 1992 r 5 I 11 NUMBER: 36 Timberline Annexation. Planning staff prepared an agreement for use in conjunction with this annexation (draft copy attached). The City Attorney's office has indicated that because this is an involuntary enclave annexation which the City can accomplish without the consent of the property owner, any agreement to exempt the subject property from future assessments should be supported by some other consideration besides the annexation of the property. In order to provide such consideration, Spring Creek Farms, Inc., might dedicate arterial streets rights -of -way along either or both Drake and Timberline Roads. Staff and Spring Creek Farms have resolved several other issues related to the annexation, including the impacts of farming operations, pesticide application, and storm drainage fees. Agreement has not been reached with regard to the issues of exemption from the payment of assessments for street improvements; the ability to lease lands for hunting; and exemption from City Sales Tax for farming operations. Mr. Johnson spoke in opposition to the annexation at Council's November 17 meeting. In regard to the hunting issue, staff contacted the cities of Loveland, Greeley, Longmont, Thornton, Northglenn, Aurora, and Colorado Springs to determine if these cities allowed hunting within their city limits. Of the cities contacted, only Greeley does not have an outright prohibition against hunting within its city. If the Council should decide to allo huntin within the city limits, staff suggests that ordinance changes be made plied on a city-wide basis rather than on a case -by -case basis within individual annexations. The issue of 'rrigation ditche is usually not addressed during the processing of an annexation. ecome an item of concern during the review of specific development plans for a property. For the most part, ditches are typically incorporated into open space areas within a development. Sometimes a minor relocation of the ditch is necessary in order to conform to the overall development plan for the property. Some developments cover ditches along their entire route through a developing property. Ditch companies are notified of all development proposals affecting their property. Ditch companies review the development plans and are required to sign off on utility plans related to the development of a specific property. Essentially, nothing can happen in regards to a ditch without the ditch company's approval. The City, at the time of development, require dedication of street rights Zfwy consistent with the functional classification o stT�ECS on ne City's Street Plan. An arterial street, for example, requires the dedication of 100 feet of right-of-way, 50 feet from center -line to be dedicated by property adjoining each side of the street. In cases where, due to existing development or other unique circumstances to an area, more right-of-way is required from one side of the street than the other, the City pays for the additional right-of-way with monies from the Street Oversizing Fund. In cases when an irrigation ditch runs parallel to a road, or in close proximity to a road, which needs to be widened, the ditch typically is relocated as part of the road widening project. DATE: December 15, 1992 I 6 I ITEM NUMBER: 36 Zoning. The suggested zonings for this annexation include 23.99 acres of the I-P, Industrial Park, District, and 411.247 acres of the T-Transition, District. The I-P District designation is for light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses located in proximity to areas zoned for residential use and/or along arterial streets. The sites of Fort Collins Pipe and Energy Coating companies are suggested for the I-P zone. The areas to the west of these companies are zoned R-L-P, Low density Planned Residential, and R-P, Planned Residential, and are developed as the Parkwood East Subdivision and the Parkwood East Apartments. Timberline Road is planned to be a major (6-lane) arterial street. Also, located to the west is EPIC and Spring Creek Park. The existing uses would become legal non -conforming uses under the I-P Zone. The existing uses may continue under the I-P Zone and even expand through the "expansion to a non -conforming use process" which requires a hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. New uses will have to conform to the requirements of the I-P Zone or be processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and be reviewed according to the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM (LDGS). These properties will probably eventually redevelop with industrial uses which could require greater public scrutiny than the former uses received. The T-Transition, District designation is for properties which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate development. The only uses allowed within the T Zone are the uses which existed at the time the T Zone was placed on the properties. The agricultural areas within the annexation, including the properties owned by Spring Creek Farms, Inc., are suggested to be placed into the T Zone. When urban development is proposed on these properties they would have to be rezoned to a zone which allows development. 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 annexa- tion by the City of Fort Collins. 3. On October 6, 1992, the City Council passed a resolution setting forth the intent to annex this property and scheduling a public hearing for the consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances related to the annexation. 4. The requested I-P, Industrial Park, and T, Transition, Zoning Districts are in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and suggested zoning. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on October 19, 1992, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and suggested zonings. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. ORDINANCE NO. 122, 1992 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE TIMBERLINE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 92-170, stating the intent of the City of Fort Collins to annex certain property and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NJW, 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 SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 08 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS BEARING N 00001'41" W AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND RUN THENCE S 89°21'52" W 1056.49 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'23" W 2653.07 FEET; THENCE N 89005'13" E 125.01 FEET; THENCE N 00°10'14" W 890.53 FEET; THENCE N 876b7'27" E 379.23 FEET; THENCE N 13°54'27" E 110.27 FEET; THENCE N 88°05'27" E 526.94 FEET; THENCE N 00'13'33" W 780.53 FEET; THENCE S 44",5'04" E 438.69 FEET; THENCE S 49°38'24" E 255.06 FEET; THENCE S 89*19'03" E 815.51 FEET; THENCE S 00°27'53" E 691.82 FEET; THENCE S 49438'24" E 5148.23 FEET; THENCE N 89°26'11" W 82.54 FEET; THENCE N 49°52'54" W 47.11 FEET; THENCE N 89°26'11" W 2480.38 FEET; THENCE S 00°u6'53" E 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE S 00°06'53" E 1326.66 FEET; THENCE td 89°24'19" W 2642.16 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'08" W 1325.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. C�":1,,INING 435.2370 ACRES. be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Timberline Annexation. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with tha property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the laity. Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 11th day of November, A.D. 1992, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D. 1992. r Mayor ATTEST: , ytc�CityC �I BT R� V C� •1i C n Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of December, A.D. 1992. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk C ORDINANCE NO. 123, 1992 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE TIMBERLINE 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 pursuant to Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by including the property known as the Timberline Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the T, Transition, Zoning District, which property is described as follows: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS BEARING N 00001'41" W AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND RUN THENCE S 89°21'52" W 1056.49 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'23" W 2653.07 FEET; THENCE N 89005'13" E 125.01 FEET; THENCE N 00°10'14" W 890.53 FEET; THENCE N 87057'27" E 379.23 FEET; THENCE N 13°54'27" E 110.27 FEET; THENCE N 88005127" E 526.94 FEET; THENCE N 00°13'33" W 780.53 FEET; THENCE S 44°55'04" E 438.69 FEET; THENCE S 49°38'24" E 255.06 FEET; THENCE S 89049'03" E 815.51 FEET; THENCE S 00"27'53" E 691.82 FEET; THENCE S 49038'24" E 5148.23 FEET; THENCE N 89°26'11" W 82.54 FEET; THENCE N 49052'54" W 47.11 FEET; THENCE N 89°26'11" W 2480.38 FEET; THENCE S 00006'53" E 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE S 00°06'53" E 1326.66 FEET; THENCE N 89°24'19" W 2642.16 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'08" W 1325.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 435.2370 ACRES; except that the following portions of the above -described property shall be placed instead in the I-P, Industrial Park, Zoning District: Parcel Number: 87191-00-003 TRACT IN NORTHEAST 1/4 OF 19-7-68 BEGINNING AT POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00019'30" WEST 1631.19 FEET AND AGAIN SOUTH 88038'30" WEST 30 FEET FROM NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 AND RUNNING THEN SOUTH 00019'30" WEST 900.09 FEET, THEN SOUTH 89'30'30" WEST 253 FEET, THEN NORTH 00*39' WEST 258.35 FEET, NORTH 89.22' WEST 198.11 FEET, NORTH 00037' WEST 100 FEET, NORTH 89032' WEST 299.64 FEET, NORTH 00.28' WEST 99.76 FEET, THEN SOUTH 69027' WEST 12.27 FEET TO BEGINNING OF CURVE, THEN SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG ARC OF 500 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, PARALLEL TO AND 6 FEET FROM CENTERLINE OF EXISTING RAILROAD SPUR, DISTANCE 135.48 FEET TO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, THEN NORTH 00°24'20" EAST 386.14 FEET, THEN NORTH 89°30'30" EAST 373.97 FEET, THEN NORTH