Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBURNS ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 23 90, A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFFv Utilltvvry ices bt'ater &- Wastewater MEMORANDUM Date: January 6, 1991 To: City Council Members Steve Burkett, City Manager Thru: Rich Shannon, Utilities Director � / �J From; Michael Smith, Water & Wastewater Utility Director Re: Burns Water Service Issue ®1 w �a The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with additional information regarding the Burns water service issue. During a telephone conversation last week, Council Member Mabry suggested that some background information on the creation of the R-F, Foothills Residential District may be helpful to the City Council. In response to that suggestion, the. following information regarding the R-F zone is attached: 1. An excerpt from the minutes (pages 108-119) of the October 1, T986 City Council .meeting. During that meeting the City Council discussed and adopted Ordinance 123, 1986, which created the R-F, Foothills Residential District. The excerpt includes discussion about the creation of the 5250 elevation building limit. 2. A copy of Ordinance 123, 1986. At a meeting between Rex Burns and city representatives on November 26, 1990, we agreed to provide Rex with information (conceptual plan) on how the city could provide water service to Rex's proposed development. A copy of the letter transmitting that information to Rex is also attached. Attachments 11 E October 7, 1986 y attached drawing). Staff believes this street design should be limited to internal local streets of developments where minimum lot sizes are one acre (43,560 square feet) or larger. The rural street standard could NOT be used in the Cluster Development Plan option in the. R-F zone since under the option development occurs at urban densities between three and five units per acre. Also, any street located in a development where lot sizes are one acre or larger which functions as a collector street or a local street which has the opportunity to connect through the development into another development must be built to current city "urban" design standards: Staff is specifically recommending the following Council actions: 1. Approval of a new R-F, Foothills Residential, Zoning District which would be applied to properties within the 'Foothills Area' at the time of annexation limiting development to one unit per 2.29 acres, but allowing a Cluster Development Plan option which could increase density to one unit per acre. 2. Approval of amendments to the existing R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District which increase the minimum lot size from 9,000 square feet to 100400 square feet, increase the minimum lot width from 75 feet to 200 feet, increase the minimum depth of the front yard from 30 feet to 60 feet, increase the minimum depth of the rear yard from 15 feet to 50 feet, increase the minimum side yard from 10 feet to 50 feet, and eliminate the planned unit development option within the zone. 3. Approval of a "rural" street design standard for use on internal local streets within developments where minimum lot sizes are one acre or larger. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the components of the Foothills Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment request at their regular monthly meetings of July 1985, and May and June of 1986. The Board has voted to recommend approval of all components to the City Council. Copies of the Board's minutes are attached. The Board also reviewed the revisions to the R-F and R-E zones at their worksession on September 19, 1986. No additional comments were made." City Manager Burkett stated this was a continuation of previous discussions Council had on expansion of the Urban Growth Area boundary in the Foothills Area. He pointed ovt staff had developed some additional options since the agenda was prepared. Chief Planner Ken Waido outlined the major goals of the R-F Foothills Residential Zoning District, explained the revisions to Ordinance No. 123 on Second Reading, and provided Council with additional alternatives for elevation restrictions. -115- October 7 1986. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1986 on. Second Reading. Chief Planner Waido answered questions from Council about Ordinance No. 123, 1986. Jim Martell, attorney representing Mrs: Burns and Kim Stuart, discussed how the limitations proposed in Ordinance No. 123, 1986 would affect his clients. He presented a topographical map of the Burns' property. He also presented a study done by Resource Consultants which indicates that water service can be provided at 5$30 feet. Mr. Martelldiscussed the density concerns for the Stuart property and pointed out the differences between this property and others in the foothills area. He encouraged a maximum, limitation of 5230 feet for the Burns' property and a maximum density of three units.per acre for the Stuart property (which is the minimum under the Land Development Guidance System). Norman Munn, P.O. Box 1040, agreed with Mr. Martell's comments, stating he felt there should be a 100-foot flexibility. Chief Planner Waido responded to Mr Martell's comments and answered additional questions from Council. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to amend Section G of Ordinance No. 123, 1986 to read as follows: G.. Maximum topographic limitation of development.. No elevation of any building built on a .lot zoned R-F shall extend above 5250 feet mean sea level.. Councilmember Estrada suggested using the language "between 5,200 and 5250 feet" which would build in some flexibility. Councilmember Horak stated he felt the current planning review process and the water service restrictions build in that flexibility. Councilmember Liebler stated although she did not mind the amendment suggested by Councilmember Horak, she preferred paragraph G as proposed by staff. Director of Water Utilities Mike Smith addressed the ramifications for water delivery and utility service up to a height of 5250 feet. Mr. Martell supported the amendment suggested by Councilmember Horak, noting that the amendment would be satisfactory to.both his clients. Mr. Munn suggested that the Ordinance be amended to require the developer to provide.a pumping system to facilitate utility service above SAO feet. -116- October 7, 1986 Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she felt the proposed amendment addresses the difficulty faced by the property owners to the south and would therefore support the amendment. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Section G of Ordinance No. 123, 1986 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Liebler. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ken Waido responded to questions from Council about zoning districts and annexations. He also presented a staff -recommended amendment to Section I, paragraph 2 of Ordinance No. 123, 1986 as follows: (2) The overall gross density of residential units on the cluster development plan is not greater than one (1) u.nit per acre, the units are clustered together in the portion of the property designated on the plan for residential use at a density of three (3) to five (5) units per acre, and the remainder of the property is permanently preserved as open space through dedication of ownership, if acceptable to the City, or placement of an appropriate easement to the City with such restrictive provisions and future interests as may be necessary to ensure the continuation of the open space use intended. As a condition of approval of the cluster development plan, the City may require the property owners to maintain the dedicated open space to City standards through a maintenance agreement. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada to amend Section I, paragraph 2 of Ordinance No. 123, 1986 as presented by staff. Councilmember Horak stated he did not support the proposed amendment, noting he thought the language was too specific. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to amend Section I, paragraph 2 of Ordinance No. 123, 1986 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Oh.lson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1986 as amended on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -117- 0 October 7, 1986 (Secret.ary's Note: The remaining ordinances to be considered under this item were postponed until after the Citizen Participation portion of the agenda.) Citizen Part.i.cipation a. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to adopt Resolution 86-168 Expressing Gratitude and Appreciation to John B. Knezovich for his Contributions to the Community as Councilmember and Mayor. Mayor Ohlson read Resolution 86-168 into the record. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 86-1.68 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. John, Jana, and Jeffrey Knezovich accepted an appreciation plaque presented by Mayor Ohlson. John Knezovich commented briefly on the upcoming election and urged defeat of Amendment No. 4. b. Proclamation Naming October as Head Iniury Awareness Month was accepted by Kurt Christiansen and Robin Caster, members of the Head Injury Support group. c. Proclamation Naming October as International Training in Communication Month was accepted by Sharon Matsuda, President of the Columbine Chapter of International Training in Communication. d. Proclamation Naming Oetober 4=11 as Mental Illness Awareness Week was accepted by Craig Jump; --President of the. Larimer County Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and Kevin Ferrare, a recovered patient. e.. Proclamation Minim- October 5-12 as Fire Prevention Week was accepted by Warren Jones of the Poudre Fire Authority. f. Proclamation Naming October 16 as World Food DAV was accepted by Robert Zimdahl, representing a. CSU group which organized the program in observance.of World Food Day. g. Proclamation Naming October as Handicapped Parking Awareness Month was accepted -by Bill Way, member of Fort Collins Chapter #5 of the Disabled American Veterans. -118- 0 0 October 7, 1986 a/ Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, thanked Council for recognizing John Knezovich. She spoke on the Robinson-Piersal issue on the November 4 ballot and asked citizens to take careful consideration of the issue before voting. Jo Carney, 618 Warren Landing, representing Progressive Living Structures, Inc., addressed possible problems with the new sales and use tax ordinance.. Mayor Ohlson stated staff was working to resolve the problems that have been brought to light and that staff would be contacting affected parties to see if improvements can be made in the process. Items Relating to the Foothills Area Urban Chief Planner Waido summarized the provisions of Ordinance No. 124, 1986. Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by. Councilmember Stoner, to adopt -Ordinance No. 1249 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ken Waido -outlined the changes made to Ordinance No. 125, 1986 since Council originally reviewed it. Councilmember Estrada made a motion$ seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 1986 on First Reading. Councilmember Kirkpatrick thanked Ken Waido and staff for their work on this issue. The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 1986 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 86-159 Adopting Financial and Management Policies Relating to the 1987 Budget Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary The 1986 Financial and Management Policies were used in developing the 1987 Budget. For 1987, these Policies have been revised: Some significant -119- Ordinance 123, 1986 Or 4 0 ORDINANCE NO. 123, 1986 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLIN'S AMENDING CHAPTER 118 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CREATING A NEW R-F, FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL, ZONING DISTRICT WITH A STANDARD MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 1 UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES BUT INCLUDING A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH COULD ALLOW AN INCREASE IN DENSITY TO 1 UNIT PER ACRE WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has considered the question of the type of development which would be appropriate to occur in the "Foothills Area" west of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Council has determined that it is'in the best interest of the citizens of the City that the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fort Collins be amended to provide a new Foothills Residential Zoning District establishing criteria for development in the said Foothills Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Chapter 118, Article IV of the Code of the City be amended by the addition of a new Section 118-39 "R-F Foothills Residential District" as follows: Section 118-39. R-F, Foothills Residential District This district designation is for low density residential areas, located near the foothills. A. Uses permitted. (1) One -family dwellings. (2) Public and private schools for elementary and high school education. (3) Public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use. (4) Churches. (5) Essential public utility and public service installations and facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding area, provided business offices and repair and storage facilities are not included. (6) Group homes, subject to approval by special review. (7) Accessory buildings and uses, except home occupations. B. Minimum area of lot. Minimum lot area shall not be less than 2.29 acres. ® 0 i( C. Minimum width of lot. Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200) feet. D. Minimum front yard. Minimum depth of the front yard shall be sixty (60) feet. E. Minimum rear yard. Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet. F. Minimum side yard. Minimum side yard width shall be fifty (50) feet. G. Maximum topographic limitation of development. No elevation of any building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above 5,250 feet mean sea level. H. Farm animals. Notwithstanding any provision of the city's Animal Control Ordinance, it shall be permissible for farm animals to be kept on any R-.F zoned property as an accessory use. Farm animals shall include, but not be limited to, the following: chickens, Pigs, sheep, goats, horses and cattle. I. Cluster Development Plan. Areas which are located on a cluster development plan, subject to approval by special review of the Planning and Zoning Board may vary the requirements of this section,.providing the following basic regulations are enforced: (1) Only the uses listed in Section A. Uses permitted, are aTlowed. (2) The overall gross density of resi.dentia.l units on the cluster development plan is not greater than one (1) unit per acre, the units are clustered together in the portion of the property designated on the plan for residential use at a density of three (3) to five .-(5) units per acre, and the remainder of the property is permanently preserved as open space through dedication of ownership, if acceptable to the City, or placement of an appropriate easement to the.City with such restrictive provisions and future interests as may be necessary to ensure the continuation of the open space use intended. As a, condition of approval of the cluster development plan, the City may require the property owners to maintain. the dedicated open space to City standards through a maintenance agreement. (3) Building envelopes are identified on the cluster development plan; the minimum area of lot, minimum width of lot, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, and minimum side yard, conform to the requirements established in the R-L Low Density Residential District; and the subdivision plat meets all the requirements of Chapter 999 Su.bdivision of Land, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (4) The layout of lots on the cluster development plan are designed to conform to terrain and located to that grading and filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes are retained... (5) Adequate utility services can be provided to the property. (6) The cluster development plan is designed to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the view of the foothills as well as the view from the foothills. (7) The cluster development plan takes into account the unique micro -climate of the foothills so that building envelopes are selected and individual structures will be built for protection from high winds and to function with maximum conservation of energy: (8) The cluster development plan shows consideration for wildlife habitats by.leaving open large single blocks of land. (9) The cluster development plan addresses compatibility with existing and planned. uses on adjacent public and private property. Buffering of incompatible uses will be required through landscaping and/or site design and public access through the cluster development plan must be provided to public recreational areas. (10) If farm animals are intended to be allowed within. the area, the cluster development plan must indicate the portions of the area reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas. from surrounding uses. Introduced, considered favorably on first. reading, and ordered published this 19th day of August, q.D. 1986, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of October, A.D. 1986. ATTEST: City- Clerk Passed and adopted on final 1986. AT�T : C i"ty - ram reading this 7th day of October, A.D. Mayor. Letter to Rex Burns Y Excerpt from the Minutes of the October 7. 1986 City Council Meeting Regarding the Creation of the It-F Foothills Residential Zone ti Utilitv Services Water & Wastewater January 6, 1991 Mr. Rex Burns 2813 S. Overland Trial Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Water Service to Bums Ranch Development Dear Rex: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information regarding how the City can provide water service to your proposed Bums Ranch development. During ourmeeting on November 26, 1990, regarding the issue of providing water service to your proposed development, we agreed to pursue the following two alternatives: 1. you agreed to formally request water service from the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District at the District's December 18th board meeting. I agreed to attend that meeting to provide any assistance (answer questions), if necessary. At the District's December 18th meeting, the Board agreed to consider serving your proposed development and requested. that your consultant develop a "service plan" which could be reviewed by the District staff and Board. Present Status: As of this date (per a telephone conversation with you on January 4th), your consultant is still working on developing a plan to be presented to the District for their review. 2. Because the City rejected your consultant's plan to use a buried metal "in -line" booster pump station, I agreed to have utility staff members develop a conceptual plan of how the City could provide long-term reliable water service to your development, in a manner which would minimize future maintenance and operations problems and provide a level of service which is consistent with what other city customers receive. 11o. lii,\ still . Fort Collins, Cl) (3M) 221-0681 1-1 Present Status. Utility staff members have completed the development of a conceptual plan for serving your development. The attached memorandum from Roger Buffington, Systems Engineer, outlines the proposed plan. Regrading the proposed plan developed by the City, I would suggest your consultant review the attached memo and then meet with Roger Buffington to discuss the plan in more detail. Please be aware that there are probably numerous variations of the plan which Roger has developed and the plan outlined in his memo is not necessarily the final option.. If you or your consultant have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Michael B. Smith Water & Wastewater Utility Director Attachment cc: Ruth Burns Judy Allay Fort Collins City Council Members Steve Burkett Rich Shannon Mike Davis Tom Peterson October 7, 1986 responsible for corresponding with state and federal representatives regarding the Council's position on upcoming legislation." Other members of the Subcommittee are Councilmembers Estrada and Horak." Councilmember Estrada made a motion; seconded by Counci.lmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Resolution 86-158 inserting the name of Barbara Liebler. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Foothills Area Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1239 1986, Amending Chapter 118 (the Zoning Ordinance), Creating 'a New R-F, Foothills Residential, Zoning District, With a Standard Maximum Density of 1 Unit Per 2.29 Acres but Including a Cluster Development Plan Option Which Could Allow_ an Increase in Density to 1 Unit Per Acre. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1986, Amending Chapter 118, Making Amendments to the Present R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, Increasing the Minimum Lot Size. from.9,060 Square Feet to 100,000 Square Feet (Approximately 2.29 Acre Minimum Lot Size), Increasing the Minimum Lot Width, 'Increasing the Minimum Lot Depth, Increasing the -Minimum Rear Yard Depth, Increasing "the Minimum Side Yard, and Eliminating the Planned Unit Development Opt:i'on Within the Zone:.. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.. 125, 1986, Amending Chapter 99 (the Subdivision Ordinance), Establishing a "Rural" Street Design Standard for internal Local Streets of Developments with Minimum Lot Sizes of One Acre or Larger. Background At the August 199 1986, City Council meeting, the Counci'l1 reviewed several items related to an Urban Growth Area boundary amendment in the foothills area. The items acluded: a resolution approving a specific boundary amendment; a resolution approving amendments to the OGA Agreement; an ordinance creating a new City zoning district for the foothills area; an ordinance making revisions to the existing R-E zoning district; and an ordinance establishing rural street standards. The changes proposed are designed to allow the 'Foothills Area' to be designated as a special "rural character" area within the Fort Collins UGA. All policies, agreements, and requirements of the UGA, in the annexation Phasing Criteria which requires properties adjacent to the city limits to annex into the city, -108- would be in effect for the 'Foothills Are limited to 1 unit per 5 acres (1 unit per 2. unit development) for proposals outside of street design standards could be reduced to large lot residential development propos maintenance, and storm water drainage provisio the residential density limitation for the spe be consistent with the density presently al classification for development proposals outs properties which annex into the city, the ne, The R-F zone restricts development to 1. unit Cluster Development Plan option which could i per acre. The Cluster Development Plan opti annexation. Only after annexation and zoning could a Cluster Development Plan be propose residentialdensity to 1 unit per acre (incr incentive for annexation). This approach authority for 1 unit per acre development sol City. At the August 19, .1986, meeting the City Gounc�il pas and 86-141 approving the UGA boundary amendment and UGA Agreement. The Council also passed, on first r 123, 1986, creating a new R-F. Zoning District. Ordinance No. 124, 1986, dealing with changes to the No. 125, 1986, dealing with rural street standar development allowed in a cluster development plan wi the amount of open space being preserved lwere discussion which led to the tabling of the ordinance the ordinances creating the R-F zone, redefining the and establishing larger minimum lot sizes inI the i below. The major goals of the R-F, Foothills Residential 1. To allow the development western edge of the City city limits; of private p of Fort Collins October 7, 1986 t density would be in a County planned y limits; and urban street standard for safety, economical )t compromised. Foothills Area' would n the Rural Non -Farm :he city limits. For ►ne would be applied. 9 acres, but allows a density up to 1 unit esigned to encourage rty into the R-F zone attempt to increase !nsity being the only put decision making the discretion of the ed Resolutions 86-140 the revisions to the ading, Ordinance No.. The Council tabled -E zone and Ordinance is. The density of hin the R-F zone and ,he major points of Staff has revised density of a cluster, -E zone as explained District are: along the within the 2. To restrict residential densities on those 1properties to a level deemed appropriate given. the fringe locationa.l nature of the properties and the area's environmental concerns; and 3. To encourage the clustering of development in order to preserve as much open space in the area as possible. In order for the R-F zone to apply, propertie;: into the city. Properties within the UGA whic-.i limits must annex into the city if a development subdivision, or planned unit development) is s that property. The UGA Agreement prohibits would have to be annexed are adjacent to the city proposal (i.e., rezoning, emitted to the County on e Co;unty from approving r -109- October 7, 1986 development proposals on annexation into the city. properties which are eligible for voluntary In order to encourage voluntary annexation of properties, the R-F zone allows residential development at a density greater than what would normally be, allowed under the County'.s MASTER LAND USE PLAN designation for the foothills area. In order to achieve this Higher density, a Cluster Development Plan must be approved by the City. The Cluster Development Plan allows the trade-off of relatively higher density for_the preservation of additional open space and the addressing of other public environmental concerns of the foothills area. While the Cluster Development Plan would allow for relatively higher residential densities no multi -family uses would be allowed,. Residential development would be limited to detached single-family dwellings. The specific provisions of the R-F zone are presented below. The zone does NOT allow a planned unit development approach, via the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM, to development. Thus, the only uses allowed on properties zoned R4 would be those listed under Section A. Uses permitted. The. development of any other use would require a "rezoning of property to another City zoning district. R-F Foo.th_ill-s Res.idential District This district designation is for low density residential areas, located near the foothills. A. Uses permitted. (1) One -family dwellings. (2) Public and private schools for elementary and high school education. (3) Public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use. (4) Churches. (5) Essential public utility and public service installations and facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding area, provided business offices and repair and storage facilities are not included. (6) Group homes, subject to approval by special review. (7) Accessory buildings and uses, except home occupations. B.. Minimum area of lot. Minimum lot area shall not be less than 100,000 square feet.. -110- L-J 0 F/ C. Minimum width of lot. feet. D. Minimum front yard. (60) feet. October 7, 1986 Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200) Minimum depth of the front yard shall be sixty E. Minimum rear yard Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet. F. Minimum side yard. Mi.nimum side yard width shall be fifty (50) feet. G. Maximum topographic limitation of development. No first floor elevation of any building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above 5200 feet mean sea level. H. Farm animals. Notwithstanding any provision of the city's Animal Control Ordinance, it shall be permissible for farm animals to be kept on any R-F zoned property as an accessory use. Farm animals shall include, but not be limited to; the following;: chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and cattle. I. Cluster Development Plan. Areas which are located on a cluster development plan, subject to approval by special review of the Planning and Zoning Board may.vary the requirements of this section, providing the following basic regulations are enforced: (1) Only the uses listed in Section A. Uses permitted, are allowed. (2) The overall gross density of residential units on the Cluster Development Plan is not greater than one (1) unit per acre, the units are clustered together in the portion of the property designated on the plan for residential use at a density of three (3) to five (5) units per acre, and the remainder of the property is permanently preserved as open space by dedication of fee ownership (or an appropriate easement) to the City with such restrictive provisions and future interests as may be necessary to ensure the continuation of the open space use intended. (3) Building envelopes are identified on the Cluster Development Plan; the minimum area of lot, minimum width of lot, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, and minimum side yard, conform to the requirements established in the R-L, Low Density Residential District;, and the subdivision plat meets all the requirements of 0 Chapter , Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (4) The layout of lots on the Cluster Development Plan are designed to conform to terrain and located so that grading and filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes are retained. -111- %4 October 7, 1986 (5) Adequate utility services can be provided to the property. (6) The Cluster Development Plan is designed to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the 'view of the foothills as well as the view from the foothills. (1) The Cluster Development. Plan takes into account the unique micro -climate of the foothills so that building envelopes are selected and individual structures will be built for protection from high wind's and to function with maximum conservation of energy. (8) The Cluster Development Plan shows consideration for wildlife. habitats by leaving open large single blocks of land. (9) The Cluster Development Plan addresses compatibility with existing and planned uses on adjacent public- and private. property., Buffering of incompatible uses will be required through landscaping and/or site design and public access through the cluster development plan must be-. provided to public recreational areas. (10) If farm animals are intended to be allowed within the area, the Cluster Development Plan must indicate.the portions of the area reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas from surrounding uses. Revisions -.in Ordinance No. 123 1986 The following revisions were made in Ordinance 123, 1986, since its initial review by the City Council on August 199 1986: Section G. Maximum topographic limitation of development, has been amended to allow the development of properties to the 5200 foot elevation line. From: No portion of any building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above,5200 feet mean sea level. To: No first floor elevation, of any building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above t200 feet mean sea level. Section I. Cluster Development Plan (2), has been expanded to require greater clustering c` residential units to a density of between three and five dwelling units per acre and thereby increasing the, amount of open space being preserved. The section also requires that the open space area be permanently preserved in a manner acceptable to the City.. From: The overall gross density of residential units on the cluster development plan is not greater than one (1) unit per acre. =112- October 7, 1986 To: The overall gross density of residential units on the Cluster Development Plan is not greater than .one (1) unit per acre, the units are clustered together in the portion of the property designated on the plan for residential.use at a density of three (3) to five (5) units per acre, and the remainder of the property is permanently preserved as open space by dedication of ownership (or an appropriate easement) to the City with such re.stri'ctive provisions and future interests as may be necessary to ensure the continuation of the open space use intended. Section I. Cluster Development Plan (3) has been changed to require minimum lot sizes and building _set -backs to conform to the provisions of the R-L, Low Density Residential, Zoning. District, instead of the R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District. Section I. Cluster Development Plan (5) has been changed. From: All elements of building structures will be located below the 5200 foot elevation contour. To: Adequate utility services can be provided to the property. The R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, is a designation for low density residential developments usually located in outlying. The minimum lot size is presently 9,000 square feet. Staff recommends the minimum Tot size be increased from 9,000 to 1009000 square feet (about 2.29 acres minimum lot size). There are several reasons for the recommended increase in minimum lot size.. Staff anticipates the R-E zone to be applied, as it has been in recent times, to existing large lot county subdivisions when. they annex into the city. Staff feels it is important that a "rural" life style be provided for within the city limits rather than having increased pressure for such development beyond the UGA boundary. This rural life style includes the keeping of farm animals, particularly horses, on. residential properties. Most of -the existing county large lot subdivisions have minimum lot sizes equal to or greater than 2.29 acres. In addition to increasing -the minimum. lot size, staff is also recommending increasing the minimum lot width from 75 feet to,200 feet, increasing the minimum depth of the front yard from 30 feet to 60 feet, increasing the minimum depth of the rear yard from 15 feet to 50 feet, and increasing the minimum side yard from 10 feet to 50 feet. The final amendment to the existing R-E zone recommended by staff is the elimination of the planned unit development option from the zone. The only uses allowed in the R-E zone would be those uses which are listed within the zone as 'Uses Permitted'. This would assure that the properties zoned R-E would remain large lot single family residential areas which would maintain a "rural" atmosphere and life style., Any other use for properties -113- October 7, 1986 zoned R-E would first have to receive approval of a rezoning to another zoning district before submitting a development plan. Revisions in Ordinance No 124 1986 The table below summarizes the lot size and set -back changes being made: in the R-E zone: Present Initial Revised R-E Zone Proposal Proposal Minimum area of lot. 9,000 sq. ft. 30,000.sq. ft. 100,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width.: 75' 135, 200' Minimum front yard. 30' 30' 60' Minimum rear yard. 15, is, 50' Minimum side yard. 10 10, 50' One of the more important perceptional components of a "rural" setting is the design of the street system. Normall:y,. rural streets do not have curbs., gutters, and sidewalks. The full requirement of "urban" street design standards for low density residential developments for the 'Foothills Area' needs to make sense from an economic perspective. City staff held several discussions on establishing a "rural" street design standard which centered on the issues of public safety, economical maintenance, and storm water drainage. There were also discussions as to where the "rural" standard would be in effect or could be used. Staff investigated several design options which eliminated curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Storm water drainage became a major concern and the use of borrow ditches and valley pans were reviewed. The use of borrow ditches for drainage creates several problems. Foremost is general maintenance. The City presently has no equipment to maintain borrow ditch drainage systems and given the expected limited use of the "rural" street design standard capital investments in such maintenance equipment cannot be justified. A flatter slope, i.e., from 1:1 to 4:1, to allow maintenance by mowers creates a need for excessive amounts of right-of-way. For example, the present "urban" local street design calls for 36 feet of` pavement within 54 feet of right-of-way. To build a "rural" local street of 36 .feet with 4:1 slope borrow ditches for drainage would require 74 feet of right-of-way (a 37t increase). Flat sloped streets are almost impossible to build in moderately rolling terrain, such as may be found in several areas near the foothills, and still solve storm drainage problems with borrow ditches. In some alternatives investigated by staff, the cost figures for a "rural" street, including maintenance costs over a 20 year period, were actually more expensive than an "urban" street. The "rural" street standard recommended by staff is for 28 feet of pavement on a 46 foot right-of-way with roll-over curb to carry storm drainage (see -114-