Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBURNS ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 23 90, A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY HALLC' ® k�x,g3o;�Q MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16, 1991 TO: City Council Members FROM: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager J RE: Burns Annexation and Development Issues The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize some of the more pertinent issues associated with the Burns' proposal to annex and develop their property in the foothills area. ' The item that i.s scheduled for Council consideration relates solely to annexation and the associated zoning designation. However, a number of questions have been raised by the property owner (Burns family) concerning development regulations and subsequent costs. While these issues are typically considered in the course of development review, the property owner has raised them in conjunction with the annexation request. ANNEXATION Is the Burns' property eligi.ble for annexation? Yes.. The property meets all requirements contained in .State law for annexation into the City. of Fort Collins. The property is contiguous to existing city limits along both its eastern and southern boundaries. Why is the R-F Zone being proposed for the property? The City Council and County Commissioners amended the UGA.Agreement in 1986 and identified the foothills areas as an area of special concern. Specific development regulations for the foothills area were developed by the City and County. The City specifically developed the R-F Zone to be applied to properties west of Overland Trail at the time of annexation. If the Burns' property is not annexed, can it develop in the County? Yes. The property is zoned FA--1/Farming. The zoning designation in the county allows development at 1 unit per 2.29 acres. The County has also adopted development regulations similar to the regulations contained in the City's R-F Zone with the exception that development in the County is limited to an elevation of 5,200 feet. 100 LaPorte Avenue- - - (.O.s Ruc �80 Fart Collins,C.11iCOC(� 7U5__.2U580 (303) 221-605 City Council Members Burns Annexation and Development Issues January 16, 1991. Page 2 DEVELOPMENT What type of development is allowed in the R-F Zone? Land uses in the R-F Zone are limited_ to single-family dwellings, schools, churches, recreational. uses, and group homes (by special review.). Development may be proposed in two forms.: (1) a standard subdivision, and/or (2) a cluster development plan. Both forms of development require approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Development density of a standard subdivision is limited to l unit per 2.29 acres (100,000 square foot minimum lot size). Under a cluster development plan, development density can be increased to 1 unit per gross acre. However, development must be clustered at densities which can range from 3 to 5 units per acre. Is there a topographic limitation to development in the R-F Zone? Yes. No portion of any building in the R-F Zone may extend above 5,250 feet. Are there other privately -owned properties in the foothills ares which have portions of the property which extend above 5,250 feet? Yes. There are properties located both north and south of the Burns' property which extend above 5,250 feet. One such property, owned by Kim Stuart, was annexed into the City in 1986. Another property, owned by Wally Noel, was considered for annexation in 1989. WATER SERVICE What was Burns' original proposal for water.service? The.original proposal by the Burns' family was to install a booster pump system on site to provide the needed pressure to serve the planned subdivision. The subdivision includes 34 homes:-22 of those homes could be adequately served by the existing City water system. However, the remaining 12 homes would not have adequate pressure to meet minimum City standards. Consequently, the booster pump proposal was made by the owner/developer. The Water Utility views this as a substandard approach to providing water service. compared to what is required and provided in the community. In addition, the ongoing maintenance costs associated with this type of mechanical and electrical equipment are very expensive --the ongoing costs are estimated at $19,000 to E25,000 per year for as long as the equipment is operated. E City Council Members Burns Annexation and Development Issues January 16, 1991. Page 3 What are the other options? Two other options have been discussed with the Burns' family. The first option is to work with the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District to see if their system can more readily serve the property. The District's reservoir and transmission lines are at a somewhat higher elevation than the City's and may be able to meet the service standards. The second option is for the Burns' development to pay the cost of building another treated water reservoir and pipeline as part of the City's system. This would serve their property as well as one other parcel that is located between the 5,200 and 5,250 elevation (see the attached drawing). What are the costs associated with these two options? The.cost for the Fort Collins/Loveland District to provide services i.s unknown. The District has asked the Burns' family to submit an engineering proposal, based on the current water delivery system,.to determine if the District's system can serve the Burns' property. The City has prepared a conceptual design and general estimate of the cost to provide water service that meets City standards. The cost estimate is $930,000. The estimate includes cost of the reservoir site ($50,000), the reservoir and pump station ($400,000), and a 12-inch water transmission line ($480,000). A portion of this cost may eventually be recovered through a repayment agreement if the other properties between the 5206 and 5250 elevations were to develop and utilize the new reservoir and water line for service to their properties (see additional shaded areas on the attached drawing). OPEN SPACE Is there an open space requirement in the R4 Zone? Yes and No. Under the standard subdivision development (1 unit per 2.2.9 acres), there is no separate open space requirement. Under the cluster development plan., the areas not devoted to development are required to be preserved as permanent open space. Does the property owner/developer derive an economic benefit from the open space areas req"uired.under a cluster development plan? Yes. The open space areas contribute to the calculation of gross density (1 unit per. acre) allowed under a cluster development plan. This development potential is then transferred into the developed clusters of the property. City Council Members Burns Annexation and Development Issues January 16, 1991 Page 4 Is there a requirement that the open space areas of a cluster development plan be dedicated to the City? No. The R-F Zone only requires the open space areas of a cluster development plan to be permanently preserved as open space. This open space can be public or private. Under certain conditions, the City can require a public easement through the private open space to ensure the continuation of public open space areas. Is the City required to accept ownership of the open space of a cluster development plan? No. Acceptance of the open space area(s) is at the discretion of the City. What is the estimated value of the property if the City was to consider purchasing all or a portion of the property for public open .space? Considering the current estimated value of the property and the priority of acquiring the property for public open space (medium to high), the estimated value is $7,000 to $10,000 per acre. Under the cluster development plan, approximately 21.8 acres would be designated for open space purposes at an estimated value of $152,600 (21.8 acres @ $7,00:0 per acre) to $218,000 (21.8 acres @ $10,000 per acre). I hope this summarizes and responds to the primary questions Council members have had concerning annexation and development issues related to the Burns' proposal. If you have other questions or comments, please let me know. SCB:sh