The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING 10.22.90 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 36 90, A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 8 MEETING DATE i n 9;) An STAFF Ken Waido City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Galatia Annexation and Zoning - #36-90, A APPLICANTS: Pavlakis Realty c/o Cityscape 3030 S. College Ave #200 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT PLANNER: Ken Waido PROJECT DESCRIPTION: OWNERS: Galatia Partnership c/o George Pavlakis 5670 E. Evans Ave. Denver, CO 80222 Request to annex and zone approximately 235.48 acres located north of East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25. The requested zoning districts are H-B, Highway Business (28.0 acres), I-P, Industrial Park (91.9), R-P, Planned Residential (64.5 acres), and T-Transitional (51.1). The H-B, I-P, and R-P zonings would carry a PUD condition. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to annex and zone approximately 235.48 acres located north of East Prospect Road and cast of Interstate 25. The requested zonings are for H-B, Highway Business (26.5 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (60.3 acres) on the eastern part of the property, and T-Transitional (51.1 acres) for the central portion of the property. The H-B, I-P, and R-P zonings would carry a PUD condition. The property is presently, for the most part, undeveloped, with the exception of a new residence at the far southeast corner of the property and a few older residential and farm structures located along the frontage road of I-25. The property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, 00 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT u It �.., L•Y•f• r. a Al F71 1 t 1 I [. r.oLlen ,i f. '-L— �� ! 1988 CITY OF FORT COLLINS SEWE MASTER PLAN • 1•- ! E s�np Ca wqr. Lines t-+ PPry,Qos;;Sswsr l nss i `EjistlRS41aMiG1` wM lines 1 1 _ =21 4% 1 Tim Beatty asked about the Overland Trail extension. Ken Waido responded the proposed extension of Overland relocated to the flat portion of ground between Drake and 38E. development activity would be the actual deciding factor of Overland Trail develops but the City is currently reserving development. Trail has been Ken explained how and when options for this Karen Johnson,. Highlands West resident, asked how the developer arrived at the number oi�'.lots in each filing. Jim Gefroh, representing the applicant, indicated the topography of the land was the main factor in how the number of lots in each subdivision were determined. Filing One is on higher. land lending itself to typical single family lots, although larger lots than those in the subdivision to the east and smaller than Highland Hills to the south. Mr. Beatty went on to state the smallest lot in Highland Hills is 20,000 square feet and the largest in this development barely that large. He felt this development would reduce his property value by $30,000 and was not a good zoning compromise for the area. The least expensive home in his development was $169,000. Mr. Gefroh indicated there would be protective covenants on the property and the homes would be semi -custom or custom, and he felt they would be over $100,000. Member Walker recognized the Ci'ty's development and felt this proposal was surrounding areas. Member O'Dell agreed. policy to encourage mixed use not an abrupt change from the Member O'Dell moved to approve Overland Hills Subdivision and Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd Filing, with the four staff conditions. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried approving both 'items 7-0. GALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING, #36-90 Ken Waido gave the staff report on this 235 acre proposed annexation with zoning of 25 acres Highway Business, 143 acres Industrial Park, and 65 acres Planned Residential, with a Planned Unit Development condition. Staff is recommending Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to City Council. Member Strom questioned' the irregular zoning boundaries. Eldon Ward, Cityscape, re.presentin,g the applicant, explained the natural boundaries, as well as highway frontage road constraints, were used to determine the zoning boundaries. .2- 0 Jim Martel, representing Kitchell Properties to the north, indicated concerns with the IP Zone. He described Kitchell as 16 five acre lots, four of which are sold, houses in the $150,000-200,000 range, zoned FA-1. The FA-1 Zone compares. to the City's RE Zone and he suggested this zone or the T-Transition zone rather than IP. He felt there was no need for an industrial zone at this location although at a later date development may move east of the Interstate. It wouldbe more appropriate to request the IP Zone at that time. Jan Lacy, property owner of property to the south, indicated she had not been notified. She added there were serious traffic problems in this area with almost daily accidents, occurring at the I-25 overpass. She felt the plan condemned a whole established area by placing a commercial/industrial zone next to residential properties: Ken Kuhn, owner Lot 8, Kitchell Subdivision, stated he bought his property to have a large residential acreage and was opposed to the industrial zone and smaller lots proposed by this project. Chairman Klataske responded this annexation was being reviewed at the applicant's request, and not as an involuntary annexation by the City. Bill Jump, Homestead Estates property owner, asked the Board request a show of hands to indicate the number of people in the audience here for this project. Chairman Klataske asked for a show of hands and approximately 30 people responded. Richard Dunn, 5021 Kitchell Drive, stated he was not opposed to growth but he was opposed to being in the City and the proposed industrial zoning. Chairman Klataske asked that Mr. Waido explain the IP, RE, and T zones. Mr. Waido indicated IP was for light industrial use occurring next to residential uses or along major arterials. The PUD condition insured future proposals would come to the Board so stricter landscaping and buffering could be required along the residential border. The RE Zone required a 2.3 acre lot size and the T-Transition Zone was used when the property owner wished to annex but not commit to any particular zoning district. No development could occur in the T Zone and the property owner's consent was required for the T Zone. Mr. Waido went on to state HB and IP Zones were appropriate given the proximity to the I-25 interchange. He added he thought the area was identified as industrial on the County Plan. The City felt, due to the importance of the I-25 Corridor, annexation of this property was important to insure development was governed by City requirements. Don Zimmerman, 1,716 Carriage Lane south of the proposal, needed specific examples of light industrial. Mr. Waido sited Hewlett-Packard, NCR, and Teledyne as examples. He noted Woodward Governor and Anheuser-Busch were considered heavy industrial and went on to caution it was hard to generically classify development.. The PUD condition would' insure surrounding residences would be appropriately buffered. Mr. Zimmerman expressed concern that the people in the area be heard. Their homes represented a valuable investment and needed to be considered. Larry Ekblad, 4701 E. Prospect, owner of 25 acres to the south, also expressed -3- 0 0 concerns. He wished to see the master plan and wondered what would happen to the •UGA. Chairman Klataske responded master plan review came later. Allen Guffey, 1725 Meadowaire Drive, Homestead Estates, moved to be in the country and was concerned when the UGA moved closer. He is now concerned about annexation. He felt there needed to be more consideration for current residents and a harder look at the development of .light industry as far as a half mile east of the Interstate. Tim Vine„ Berthoud, part owner of Kitchell Subdivision, felt this proposal brought industrial too close to residential properties and there needed to be some type of residential barrier dividing these properties. Cherrie Nichols, 1601 ,Meadowaire, was concerned and had questions regarding possible tenants and how the acreage was determined. Eldon Ward responded no specific tenants were identified. Physical constraints as well as existing policy and collector street possibilities determined zoning boundaries. He explained a collector street moved traffic within a development internally and to the outer edges. Some master planning had been done showing a series of transition or less intense uses for buffering between the larger industrial uses and the residences. The property would take many years . to develop so he hesitated to identify specific uses but more intense uses would be nearer 'I-25. Traffic would not be introduced into residential areas. Mrs. Nichols noted residents wanted some say about how their area grew and her major concerns were increased proximity to the City, traffic concerns, water and sewer, and what governs future. Mr. Ward stated that, when traffic increases warranted, a signal would be installed. Mr. Waido indicated the area was currently in Boxelder Sanitation District and Elco water. A major City trunk facility was proposed at Prospect and utilities would be extended when needed at a cost to the developer. Mrs. Nichols requested a transitional zoning so property owners could be assured of setbacks. Mr. Waido explained the PUD condition and the master plan, preliminary, and final phasing. He indicated no use would be allowed without Planning and Zoning Board approval. Jan Lacy •asked when neighborhood needs would be addressed. Mr. Waido stated final decision of what locates where would be at preliminary and final plan stages. He added that industrial/residential/commercial development is not inherently incompatible with residential. Don Zimmerman questioned the notification procedure and Mr. Waido responded. Paul Eckman added the LDGS required notification of property owners within 500 feet. Member Carroll requested all questions be stated before the process of giving answers begin. Mr. Ekblad asked timing on enlarging Prospect Road from I-25 east to the -4- Poudre River. Barry Nichols, Homestead Estates, expressed concern with their neighborhood being annexed and felt they would lose the essence of why they moved to the area. Maryann Wood, 173.3 Meadowaire Drive, liked her rural atmosphere and didn't want businesses as a neighbor. Paul Eckman read from annexation statute that this .property must not be divided without the owner's consent since it is under one ownership. He added the LDGS makes no distinction 'between whether a .property is inside, or outside City limits regarding notification procedures or dealing with neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Waido 'indicated a traffic study would be required for Prospect Road and the City off -site street ordinance required a 38 foot pavement as a minimum. He went on to state the Board had several courses of action they could take and added the applicant would like to work with the property owners but needed some guidance from the Board. Member O'Dell understood citizen concerns and felt it was appropriate to have the HB Zone and some IP Zone at I-25 and Prospect but not in the area to be newly incorporated in the UGA. The Board needed to be concerned about the transition between the existing residential and proposed IP Zone. Member Strom generally agreed with Member O'Dell and added the IP Zone with a PUD condition provided more protection than the neighborhood realized. He added he would like to see this proposal zoned T-Transition or continued so the applicant could work further with the neighbors. Member Carroll agreed with Members O'Dell and Strom. He added the Board was not approving or disapproving development but, while approving a zoning district creates some , expectations, actual development depended on the applicant's proposals, zoning, and market trends. This was a large piece of property and he believed the T Zone or a continuance would give affected property owners time for dialogue. Mr. Eckman noted the petition could not be withdrawn and Mr. Waido stated the Board could not place the T Zoning on the property without the applicant's consent. Member Cottier agreed with the neighbors' concerns, feeling that abutting industrial to residential was not appropriate. Member Cottier moved to continue the proposal to the next meeting in hopes the developer could redefine appropriate boundaries. Mr. Eckman read from the code statements regarding the T Zone. Member O'Dell seconded the motion adding a condition that the -applicant meet with interested property owners to discuss zoning and answer their questions. Member Cottier accepted the amendment to her motion but felt it was treating the project as a master plan rather than a zoning. Member O'Dell felt it -5- 0 would provide for an educational process on how annexation works. Member Walker agreed HB and IP Zoning was appropriate near I-25 and there was a "place for all the pieces" but felt a closer look at issues was needed. He added the City encouraged mixed use and felt the PUD condition was a safeguard mechanism for the City and adjacent owners. Chairman Klataske felt the annexation with a PUD condition could be supported since residents would be assured an opportunity for, input. Motion to continue Galatia Annexation and Zoning to the October meeting passed 7-0. HARMONY CORRIDOR Chairman Klataske asked if there would be any opposition to continue the Harmony Corridor Plan and its elements to Monday, September 30, at 6:30 PM. None existed so that item was continued. VICTORIA GABLES AT SILVERPLUME PUD - Preliminary. 063-89D Kirsten Whetstone gave the staff report recommending approval with a condition that the storm drainage issue be resolved prior to final. She noted this proposal would replace existing approval for 144 multi -family units with 40 paired units and complete development at Silverpiume. Member O'Dell questioned what Rossborough Park to the south was used for and Ms. Whetstone replied it was open space for unstructured activities. Member Carroll asked the status of the northern area and Ms. Whetstone noted it was developed and the southern area was covered by •an approved PUD: Dick Rutherford, representing the applicant, reiterated the change of the boundary line to the north and the use of open space indicating the single -story paired housing would result in a dramatic reduction in density. -6- Galatia Annexation an Zoning - #36-90, A • October 22, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 2 Background: The applicant, Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design, on behalf of the owner, Galatia Partnership (Pavlakis Realty has power of attorney), has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 235.48 acres located north of East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25. The requested zonings are for H-B, Highway Business (26.5 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (60.3 acres) on the eastern part of the property, and T-Transitional (51.1 acres) for the central portion of the property. The H-B, I-P, and R-P zonings would carry a PUD condition. (See attached conceptual master plan map for exact locations of proposed zonings.) The property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. Any existing commercial signs on the property will have to conform to the City's Sign Code at the conclusion of a five year amortization period. The property is divided by the current Fort Collins Urban Growth Area boundary. Approximately 78 acres (the eastern portion of the property) is located outside the UGA. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, the City can consider the annexation of property outside the UGA by giving the County sufficient notice (35 days) of the intent to annex the property. According to the UGA Agreement, annexation of property outside the UGA by the City of Fort Collins automatically amends the UGA boundary to conform to the boundaries of the annexation. Larimer County responded to the notice of the proposed annexation is a letter dated September 11, 1990 (copy attached). The County requested that all adjacent street right-of-ways be included in the annexation and commented generally that plans for extensions of urban services should be in place before annexations occur, particularly when an annexation will go beyond the UGA boundary. The County indicates the annexation of this property will not create any negative impacts on County facilities and services. In considering utility services, an existing 24" Boxelder Sanitation District sewer main crosses the property at its northwestern corner. An existing 12" ELCO Water District water main is located one-half mile to the north. The City's Water Master Plan anticipates that a 16" water main will be extended east of I-25 along Prospect Road and then turn north dividing the subject property along the current UGA boundary. Thus, it appears that adequate utility services either currently exist or will be made available to this site in the near future by the City or by other utility service providers. Electric utility service to the site is currently available from Public Service Company and REA. If the property is annexed, electric utility service would be provided by the City. Cost of extending electric service would be paid by the developer except for facilities needed on an area -wide basis. City Departments' and other agencies submitted the following comments regarding the proposed annexation: Galatia Annexation and Zoning - #36-90, A 16 October 22, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 3 Storm Drainage: A small portion of the site, in the northwest corner, is located in the Boxelder Creek Basin. Due to restrictions at I-25, Boxelder Creek backs -up and forces some storm water to leave the main channel. This overflow then heads to the south and will have to be taken into account when the property develops. Advance Planning: Recommend PUD conditions on H-B and other zones. Water and Wastewater: Utility service from the City is not available for this property at this time. Light and Power: Request a 15' utility easement along all roadway frontages, including both sides of the Frontage Road where it curves around the north side of Prospect. Zoning: No problems. Parks: No problems. Fire Department: The area is not presently served by a water supply system capable of supporting significant development. Engineering Department: No comments. Transportation: No comments. Natural Resources: No comments. Police Department: No Comments. Public Service Company: No comments. REA: No comments. This property is eligible for annexation according to state law. The property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Interstate Associates Annexation to the south and the Highway I-25 Second Annexation to the west. In addition, C.R.S. 31-12-105 (1)(a)(b) of state law regarding annexations indicates that land under single ownership (whether in one tract or more than one tract) cannot be divided for the purposes of annexation without the consent of the property owner. The property owner does not wish to divide the property for the purposes of annexation. The property owner intends eventually to develop the area under a single unified planned unit development. The UGA Agreement also contains a provision prohibiting the County from accepting a development application for property which is eligible for voluntary annexation into the city. However, if the City rejects the annexation request, the owner's only option would be to seek authorization from the County to develop the property. The surrounding zoning and existing land uses are as follows: Galatia Annexation and Zoning - #36-90, A October 22, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 4 N: FA-1, Farming County zoning, residential subdivision, and C, Commercial County zoning; largely undeveloped E: FA-1, Farming County zoning; farmland S: H-B, highway business with PUD condition; Interstate Associates Annexation, undeveloped, and C, Commercial County zoning; partially developed, and FA-1, Farming, existing single family houses W: B-P, planned business with PUD condition; Highway I-25 Annexation and H-B, highway business with PUD condition; Interstate Lands Annexation, undeveloped. Almost all of both 1/4 sections adjacent to 1-25 located north and south of the subject property are zoned C, Commercial zoning in the County. The County C zone is a very permissive commercial zoning district. East Mulberry Street is, for the most part, zoned C. The subject property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming. However, staff believes, a strong case could be made by the property owner to rezone the western portion of the property to the C zone in the County. The requested zonings are for H-B, Highway Business (26.5 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (60.3 acres) on the eastern part of the property, and T-Transitional (51.1 acres) for the central portion of the property. The H-B, I-P, and R-P zonings would carry a PUD condition. The H-B District designation is for automobile -oriented businesses. The I-P District designation is for light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses. The I-P district is designed for industrial uses in proximity to areas zoned for residential use and along arterial streets. The R-P District designation is for residential areas planned as a unit to provide a variation in use and building placement. The T-Transitional zone is for areas which are in transition from rural to eventual urban uses. At this time the applicant does not wish to designate a developable zone for the T zone areas. The property will probably eventually develop with a combination of auto related commercial businesses on the 26.5 acres at the interchange of I-25 and Prospect Road, a combination of light industrial and business uses on the 91.9 acres to the north and east of the commercial uses, and a variety of residential uses on the eastern 64.5 acres. According to the City's LAND USE POLICIES PLAN, commercial, business, and industrial uses should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the uses but will not create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the city. This site addresses these locational policies. There are no immediate development plans for the property. The T zoned areas could develop with a variety of uses depending on the eventual development of other parts of the property. 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. Galatia Annexation f Zoning - #36-90, A • October 22, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 5 2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On October 16, 1990, the City Council passed a resolution which accepts the annexation petition and determines that the petition is in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiates the annexation process for this property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Public hearing and first reading of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the property will be considered by the City Council on November 20, 1 9 9 0 4. The requested H-B, I-P, and R-P Districts are in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning. ITEM GALATIA ANNEXATION & ZONING !NUMBER 36-90 HI INDOSTRIAt/ ^ JSINES,5'-PARK u;...c INDUSTRIAL/ BUSINESS PARK •s].5 ,c f] HIGHWAY - :.1.1 . TRANSITIONAL . x..! 1C TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL/ ;: .,x..� BUSINESS PARK !-] ,C II 11 � HIGHWAY �• @USINES D` �. TRANSITIONAL �.tua .c '� \- INDUSTRIAL/•% ,BUS INESSPARk,,. 4AC ZONING AREA BREAKDOWN , ww.. w•, u .e. to a.x ra NNEi ,ENT I&$ •c RES IDENTIA \ LANNED RE4QENTIAL 1 ' I Galatia CONCEPTUAL PLAN W w. •: PROPOSED ZONING PLAN art a •Ilmwu • xs — Iemo.e-_ a m W —_ •I i Galatia Annexation Zoning Requests J 9 V WA No Text