HomeMy WebLinkAboutGALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING 10.22.90 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 36 90, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES�--. �Z �� ►mob -� � � .
►�
D G� a
'� �
GALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING -
36-90
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated this meeting was continued from the September 24th meeting.
In summary this was a request to annex and zone approximately 235 acres, located at the
northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The area was outlined in red on the
map behind him and the zoning request was different this evening than what was proposed and
discussed at the September meeting. The request was for 28 acres of Highway Business, 91.9
acres of Industrial Park, 64.5 acres of Planned Residential, and 51.1 acres of T-Transition.
Another unique feature of this particular annexation was that the current urban growth
boundary as established with the agreement with the City and the County divides the property,
essentially the eastern 78 acres is presently located outside of the urban growth area boundary.
Mr. Waido outlined these areas on a slide for the board stating the subject property was the
dark area outlined in red, the black line up through the mid section, out to County Road 5 and
up further north was the current urban growth area boundary. The dotted line was the current
City of Fort Collins incorporated boundary. Essentially the western half of the area to the west
of the Interstate 25 was currently annexed into the City.
Mr. Waido used a conceptual master plan to outline to areas that were being requested for the
various zones adding that the board in its discussion this evening would not be giving any
approval preliminary or another way to the master plan. The zoning districts would have a
legal description and meets and bounds description for those areas when those items go to
Council in ordinance form. 28 acres were being requested for Highway Business, they were the
southwestern portion of the areas labeled A,B,C, on the master plan. 91.1 acres were requested
for the IP- Industrial Park was the white areas moreless in the central and the northwestern
part labeled F,E,H,D, on the master plan. R-P for 64.5 acres was the light areas labeled L,M,N,
on the master plan and essentially the zones were in the same areas the board looked at the
September meeting, the difference in the zoning request was the inclusion of a new T-
Transition zone for 51.1 acres approximately, the gold area located in the central portion of the
annexation on the master plan, areas g,k, and j. The T-Transition zone is a zone that was
placed into the City of Fort Collins Zoning Code several years ago specifically for the purpose
of allowing properties to annex into the City and meet the State requirement for zoning.
Properties upon annexation have to be zoned within 90 days of annexation. The T zone was
actually a holding zone, no development was allowed in the T zone. The property would have
to be rezoned out of the T-Transition zone into one of the other 23 other developable zones in
the community. He mentioned this as more of a holding zone than a T-Transition Zone because
the master plan or the zoning was not to be interpreted that the land uses may eventually end
up in the area would be a transition or need to be in transition between the varying uses, either
within the annexed property or the properties adjacent to the annexed property. He thought
it was very likely that those uses that would eventually end up there would be transitional in
nature but the zoning T-Transition was just the name of a zone.
Staff was going to recommend approval of the annexation and the zoning request as placed
before them, they find that the annexation was in conformance with the policies and
agreements contained in the intergovernmental agreement for the urban growth area between
the City and Larimer County. The area meets all the criteria and state statutes to qualify for
a voluntary annexation. On October 16th the City Council accepted the petition and
established a public hearing date to consider the ordinances annexing and zoning a property,
that date has been set for November 20th of this year. Staff had evaluated the highway
business, industrial park, and planned residential zoning districts and find that they were in
conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Again, they did recommend
9
preparation of food product, pharmaceutical manufacturing, research, scientific laboraties.
Light industrial uses shall not include uses such as mining, extracting industries, petrochemical
industrial industries, rubber refining or primary metal or similar type of industries. The PUD
condition on all of these zones does not give any uses by right, all uses would have to be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Member O'Dell stated that designating a zone, designates expectation of that's how it would be
developed.
Mr. Waido replied that it did create some expectations for ultimate development of the
property. Again the first development related step would be approval by the board of a master
plan and at that time the types of uses, the density etc. would begin to be established, but those
again are a guarantee nor limitation, still an individual project would come through and would
have to stand on its own merits.
Chairman Klataske asked if the T-Transition zone would come to them in 60-90 days for a
zoning designation.
Mr. Waido replied the city code provides a process for removal of a T-Transition zone.
According to the code 60 days after the board hears that item the City Council was obligated
to remove the T-Transition zone and place a developable zone on the property. If the applicant
requested zone A, he did not have to get nor was the city obligated to zone it A, they could zone
it B, C, D or what ever they felt was appropriate for the area.
Chairman Klataske asked if that was through City Council or Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Waido replied the Council would place the both acting on a recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
Chairman Klataske asked if there would be an opportunity for further public input on the T-
Transition zone at this board and wondered if there would be another neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Waido replied that there would notification of any rezoning effort on the property and
then there would be a minimum of two public hearings, one before the Planning and Zoning
Board to formulate a recommendation to the City Council and at least one public hearing if not
two in front of the City Council.
Chairman Klataske asked if there would be notification published in the paper.
Mr. Waido replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if there was a time limit with respect to how long a property could be
zoned T.
Mr. Waido replied no there was not.
Member Strom moved for approval of the proposed Galatia Annexation and Zoning having
agreed with the findings in the staff report regarding the consistency with policies and
agreements of the Intergovernmental Agreement and consistency with criteria of State laws
presented to them by the staff the resolution passed by the City Council on October 16th and
that the zoning proposed was in conformance with the adopted policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
18
0
Member Walker Seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated he thought his sense of the sensitive areas had to do with relationships
of land uses between the existing large lot residential and possible uses on the large parcel of
land divided into several types of future uses. It was his belief that the city's Land
Development Guidance System and the policies that the city exercises in using that Guidance
System provide the residents and homeowners in this vicinity a great deal of protection and a
great deal of opportunity to participate in this process. He knew that some of them had become
much more informed about the city's Land Development Systems in the last weeks and
encouraged them to continue that process. At a minimum the property would come back to
them three additional times and as they got further into the process the issues they look at
become more and more detailed and more specific with regard to what would happen on the
property and how it would relate to their properties when development occurred. He very
strongly encouraged them to continue the process of learning the system and continue to
participate in it and by no means from the standpoint of approving this did he discount their
concerns, it was his judgement that this project proposal could go forward and still protect
their interest in the quality of life in the residential areas.
Member Walker stated that he thought that the way the property had been proposed to be
brought into the city as far as zoning met the city's needs as far as what the city considers
appropriate zoning for city property and the PUD process that was being proposed would
provide an opportunity for the board and local residents to be involved in the process. The
Planned Residential on the east side of the property with a PUD could be made to be
compatible with the existing land uses. The way the property has been zoned, Highway
Business and Industrial Park was appropriate given its proximity to the Interstate. The T-
Transition means there was a large area in effect had not been resolved but had to go through
the process again and he was comfortable with that level of uncertainty at this time and that
it did make sure that an area of sensitive concern abutting other properties would be looked
at closer. For those reasons he believed the proposed annexation and zoning was compatible
with city policy.
Member O'Dell stated she appreciated the input the residents had given them and what they
had learned was helpful to them and to the board to. She thought that having the PUD
condition on the land and thus having it go through the Land Development Guidance System
was going to allow alot of flexibility on the board's part and on the developer's part. Rather
that having a straight subdivision which might be 3 dwelling units per acre or 5 dwelling units
per acre, just stack one on top of the other, there was the possibility for the board to ask for
a clustering of homes and open space and greenbelts and things like that which would help
them. She thought leaving the zones in T-Transitional was for now not knowing what was
happening out there and not knowing what was going to happen on the other vacant county
land she thought that it was the best thing to do know. She asked that rather that just having
the property owners in question notified of the zoning change, the people that had been
involved in the whole process be notified of that pending zoning change when ever that should
happen.
Member Cottier stated she was going to support the motion and thought the proposed zoning
was appropriate for the area and she having the PUD condition would provide a fair amount
of protection to the neighbors. She thought their basic concerns about a transitional uses and
low density simply could not be responded to at this point because they did not have any
development proposal to react to. At such time when a development proposal did come in that
was when they could really listen to them if they agree and work to keep the density lower and
more compatible with the neighborhood. Now was not the time when they could begin to
M
address that issue and the residential zoning was not a guarantee for any density but hopefully
when a development proposal it would be sensitive to a very low density compatible with the
existing homes there.
Member Carroll stated he to would support the motion because in recommending annexation
to City Council, the only thing they were doing was recommending that the area to the east in
a residential manner and the areas to the west be developed into the two zones suggested and
again the area in the middle was being put in a holding pattern. Since this was a PUD
condition any development was going to have to come back in front of them. He heard a
comment that the developer may propose a large density on it, well he might, he could really
propose what ever he wishes but first it would go through staff and then neighborhood
meetings and back to them for final decisions. One of the elements they look at in evaluating
master plans was neighborhood compatibility. Again that was no guarantee that they were
going to approve the type of density that anybody wants and they have no development plans
in front of them. These seven members may not be there when it comes back before the board
but the point was that this board would be the final arbiters of the density and the way the
subdivision was laid out and everyone would have the chance to voice the comment and that's
when the issues which he had and the other members had reviewed that had been brought up
in the letters would be addressed. For instance utilities, the city would not permit a
development to develop when they did not have utilities. That was something that had to go
through the proper departments of the city as opposed to people hooking up to sewer lines and
finding out they have no service.
Chairman Klatase stated that even though they did not have a proposed development on this,
at least with everyone's involvement this early in the stage it had put the developer and owner
on notice of what your concerns were so that he could work with them more closely in the
future and hopefully through that negotiation everyone would come out with a better project
that would work for their needs for property owners in the area and also work for the
developer instead of waiting until down the road when they had a development proposal before
them and there had been no citizen input on it and all at once you were asked to react to
something you were not aware of at all.
Motion was approved 7-0.
•
approval of the annexation and zoning as being placed before them this evening and he would
be happy to address any questions the board might have.
Member Carroll stated they needed to be very clear and the map in front of them was for
illustration purposes only. When this goes before City Council for approval or disapproval,
assuming its approved, those won't appear. L,M, and N would just be one piece. They would
not be approving or disapproving the roads and letters.
Mr. Waido replied that what they would be approving would be a meets and bounds boundary
description outlining the areas. The master plan was only up there to show the general
locational proximity of the zones.
Member Carroll stated they received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nichols that he had read several
times. One of the comments mentioned was the eastern area that was outside the UGA and
there was a comment and he quotes, "We could live with development of this section if it was
designated with a density of no more than one unit per 3/4 to 1 acre". Now, if this comes in
as R-L, and later comes back as a master plan, did they have flexibility on the density.
Mr. Waido stated that one minor correction, was the proposed zoning was R-P, Planned
Residential not R-L. One thing that he failed to mention was that they were recommending
a PUD condition be placed on all the zones except the T zone. That means that before the
property was developed it would have to come through the three processes, the master plan, the
preliminary plan and the final plan for each of them. At the boards purview of approving the
master plan for the R-P zoned area that would be the time that the board would be asked to
approve anticipated or proposed densities. The acreage figure of 64.5 would have a blob or a
series of blobs like was indicated on this master plan with a potential number of dwelling units
on that. Because this was a PUD or would have a PUD condition, all development would be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The subdivision on Clarendon Hills which they
just reviewed, that was a straight zoning district, R-L-P, and it sets certain minimums, and once
the developer satisfies all the zoning code and subdivision code requirements, the board has
very little flexibility or authority as to what can happen. But in this case, with a PUD
condition, they would be involved in establishing the density and the ultimate layout of the
property.
Member Carroll asked to exaggerate just for the purpose of this discussion, if the developer
brought before them a master plan that said had 2 units per acre and they determined that was
not compatible with the surrounding area and wished to have one unit per 2 acres, that was
something that would be in their discussion.
Mr. Waido replied that would be in their purview, but they would also have to be granting a
variance or looking at a variance to a criteria in the LDGS which indicates a minimum of 3
dwelling units per acre should be approved residentially in the city for service reasons,
economical provisions of services and facilities.
Member Carroll asked if they could grant the variance.
Mr. Waido replied they could.
Mr. Eldon Ward, representing the applicant, George Pavilakis, stated he would like to run
through a series of things. Since they began this process there had been some very basic
questions raised, should this area be annexed, particularly since part of it extends beyond the
existing urban growth area and if so, how would they arrive at the appropriate zoning.
m
Annexation of this area was consistent will the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement
which allows for the circumstance where a property is bi-sected by the urban growth area.
Mr. Ward explained a map of City and County zoning and annexations in the northeast area
along I-25. The city limits had grown out past I-25 in a couple of areas, typically, there had
been large blocks of industrial highway business granted. In Larimer County there were very
large blocks of C-Commercial zoning in those areas, virtually, the entire quarter section to the
south, several hundred acres to the north were in a very wide open county C-Commercial zone
and one of the aspects to consider in this annexation was that this property would help to
establish contiguity and help the eligibility of those properties to be annexed. A concern that
was raised was that annexation of this property would some how open the door for annexations
further to the east and further amendments to the urban growth area boundary. They did not
feel that was the case as they said the intergovernmental agreement had some specific
allowances for the unusual conditions here for other properties to added to the urban growth
area, other annexations to the east would pretty much require whole sale rethinking of the
intergovernmental agreement. This did not set a president, because it was split by the UGA
line. The property was under a single ownership and had been for at least the last 18 years.
The urban growth area line did go as far east as County Road 5 a short distance north of the
property. One of the considerations was the provision of urban services. The current plan for
urban services in this area do provide for service out to County Road 5. The master street plan
showed Prospect and County Road 5 both as arterial streets that would complete a loop back
into the City and up to Mulberry. Light and Power is currently planning to extend a major
trunk line out prospect and up County Road 5. The city's master plan for water runs a water
line through the center of the section where it would be able to provide service on both sides.
As Ken stated they only brought this at the last meeting, it was not particularly clear where
the zoning designations were and what their logic was in establishing them. They generally
feel there was an advantage to keep this property intact annex the whole thing and have the
owner retain the ability to do a unified master plan for the entire piece and he thought that
was consistent with the boards actions over the years. He thought that determining whether
the easterly 77 some acres should be annexed or not was more a question of jurisdiction that
of development. The slide illustrates that there are existing subdivisions to the north and south
of that area. That fact combined with the planned extension of urban services he thought it
was very likely that this area would develop.
The applicant was aware of the challenges posed by making development compatible with the
existing subdivisions to the north and across Prospect to the south. He thought the question
was, is that concern better addressed through the City's LDGS or through development as
another county subdivision. He thought that their feeling was that leaving it in the county or
putting a very restrictive zoning designation limiting numbers at this time. If you look at some
of the scattered low density subdivisions around the county, their conclusion was simply
limiting the number did not assure quality or compatibility and that the guidance system was
a better vehicle through which to address that. They will admit part of their concern with this
was that the future plans were uncertain. That was simply stating the facts, the applicant did
not know exactly what would be build there. Part of the philosophy of the LDGS was that
rather than artificially addressing exact density, lot sizes, prices of homes, architectural
character at the time of zoning you get into those things at the evolutionary process of master
plans, preliminary plans and very specific details with file plans. The four zoning districts
they were requesting, Planned Residential, although they did not know what type of residential
would go in there. They felt that it was appropriate to keep the door open to allow a variety
of housing types in the area. As they saw a few minutes ago, you could not always predict far
ahead of time the number of units that was appropriate. There were trade offs, the ability to
do more units did allow more buffering between adjacent uses. It may create the potential for
0 0
a city park in this case which wouldn't be there extremely low densities. They did not know
what the density ought to be but they think that would be best addressed at the master plan
stage. The industrial park zone, they were asking for was very consistent, in fact, he thought
the non-residential zoning that they were asking for was very modest compared to what had
been placed in other areas in the county and in the city with recent annexations out there.
They felt it was consistent and appropriate given the surrounding zoning and potential land
uses. The T-Transition area had been troublesome to both them and some of the area residents
because it leaves a greater level of uncertainty but at this point they did not have a better
suggestion. They had originally submitted this without a T-Transition zone, that was the area
they felt was the most critical. It was between the non-residential uses and the residential areas
to the east and again instead of taking a shot in the dark and putting a zoning designation on
there at this time they felt it would be more appropriate to come back when they were further
along and had a better idea of what might be appropriate at that time. That was his
presentation and he would be happy to answer any questions or if they like he could come back
later and respond after there had been more discussion.
Ms. Edie Stout, 1801 Meadowaire Drive in Homestead Estates south of the proposed Galatia
Annexation stated over the past few weeks several of them had been busy talking to many city
officials and city staff including people from the utilities, zoning and planning departments.
Their goal was to learn planning procedures, zoning possibilities, annexation policies and
general information about the Galatia Annexation. They wanted them to know that it was
their intention to approach this in a knowledgeable and reasonable way. They had achieved
a greater understanding of the issues and had put together a statement which she would like
to read to them this evening. They should have a copy of this in front of them. "Ladies and
Gentlemen: We are property owners in the areas adjacent to the proposed Galatia Annexation.
This letter is a statement of our concerns and recommendations for consideration by the
Planning and Zoning Board. In general we feel the developers revised zoning proposal has
failed to assuage our concerns about the density of the residential development and his
commitment to providing aesthetic transitions to the surrounding existing use. We have these
specific concerns and recommendations:
1. All the current residential development surrounding the proposed project consists of
estate acreage. We propose that a special zoning district be created for the residential
areas that designates the maximum density to be one unit per 3/4 acre. Insuring land
use compatibility in this area outside the urban growth area.
2. The problem of industrial park boarding on residences was addressed in the revised
proposal by using T-Transitional zoning. At the neighborhood developer meeting, we
learned that the designation of T-Transitional could ultimately allow virtually any use.
The developer gave office business parks and multi -family residential of example of
potential uses. This designation provides no assurance of use compatible of the
surrounding area. Therefore, they would like the developer to change the T-
Transitional zone to industrial park and to designate a large 200 to 300 foot landscaped
greenbelt area between the industrial park and these residences.
3. The potential for widening Prospect Road to a four to five lane highway presents a
threat to all residences that boarder Prospect on the south. A very large irrigation ditch
runs parallel to and just yards from Prospect along the eastern half of Galatia's
southern boundary. Which would not allow equal land from each side to expand the
road. We feel that a solution to this problem could be established prior to annexation
to insure the integrity of existing residences.
4. If the annexation occurs the city will assume the responsibility of police protection of
12
the area. With increased residential population as well as increased traffic to and
through the roadside business and industrial business. We are concerned about the
ability of the Fort Collins Police Department adequately serve this fringe area. We are
also concerned that the City's commitment of protecting our area which will be heavily
affected by city growth while remaining outside the city boundary.
5. City officials conceded the Boxelder Sanitation System is currently used to its maximum
capacity. At the Neighborhood -Developer meeting, the developer indicated his
intention to connect to that system. The use of the Boxelder System, its capacity and
expansion plans should be understood prior to annexation.
As you can see there are thirty four signatures and I thank you for your consideration of our
concerns".
Carol Dunn, who lives in the Kitchuawa Estates stated they were very concerned with the
transitional areas and what might be done there. They did agree they would like to see some
greenbelt area put in around their area.
Bill Jump, 1617 Carriage Road, Homestead Estates to the south stated that first of all he would
like to thank the Planning Board for letting them as a neighborhood have a chance to listen to
the developer and bring this matter over into continuance. He was glad to see that the
developer at least listened to somewhat to the area by trying to at least address the area that's
transition. He thought that as they heard the testimony tonight the big issue was going to be
what was the transition between the large residential acreages. He did not know what was the
best zoning to place this time, his concern was that whatever was agreed to by the Planning and
Zoning Board that they be large constraints or considerations given as this goes to a master plan
of what that transition would look like. We were not only talking low density in your terms
of residential acreage we were talking very low low densities. He was glad to see the Galatia
folks at least try to address some of those concerns but would also hope that as they go through
the notification process the next time, the 500 foot radius be approved. He would like to thank
Ken personally for doing abetter job the second time in notifying us of the meeting. He hoped
the names would be kept in a file most of them tend to be longer term residents. It seemed to
be a communication problem with the county and city as to who are the land owners out there.
His concern was that he hoped they would address the whole issue of transition zoning and not
in the sense of t-transition but to insure that there was a quality of life maintained and that
they do make the gradation between the very low low density residential and the industrial
that was proposed.
Roger Anderson, 1709 Carriage Road, stated what no one had shown so far is what they
actually had. These were plotted as five acre plots, there were already two houses, custom
homes constructed. Down along the south side they had one acre and five acre lots and the last
home being built was $280,000. What they had in the planned residential was 450 house and
that did not correspond with the surrounding development. Across the road also they had the
large custom homes, going up the hill the furthest section, he was unfamiliar with what section
that was, but if you drive down 14 you would see all large custom homes in that area. So what
they were bringing in here as far as transitional, this could be apartment houses as far as they
know, no one can assure them of anything. That was why they were pushing for a greenbelt.
If they do change this over to industrial business park, definitely put a greenbelt in there. It
was like the last issue with the Clarendon, they had large lots also and they were getting
blocked in, so plan wisely.
Chuck Nacos, owner of the property that the annexation directly affects. His back yard would
13
border this. He bought five acre lot and he and his wife felt that the corridor to Timnath was
headed rural, theres large acreage, there was no sewer that could service this area now and they
envisioned it staying rural. He did not feel that any of the industrial business park annexation
was responsive to what this area had been headed for. He thought it was all out of line and the
developers use that yes it was common north and common south but those areas were rural farm
areas. This area already had a good residential estate thing going. They did not anticipate this
and he did not think that if in 1986 you could approve the Clarendon Subdivision with 2 to 3
homes per acre that they could allow a industrial park to even be close to what was taking place
out there now.
Sherry Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire Drive, Homestead Estates, stated at the last City Council
meeting last week as Mr. Ward was making the point that a city subdivision adjacent to county
rural acreages was compatible land use, he drew a comparison of their situation to the
Clarendon Hills Subdivision and the surrounding areas. Unfortunately, with the R-P zoning
they have no insurance that the development of the 64.5 acres planned residential area would
yield a one unit per acre density as was the average in Clarendon Hills so far. In fact the
developer has indicated there was a good chance that the density would be much higher than
this. Actually they would be quite satisfied with the residential area being developed with a
density of one unit per acre as in Clarendon Hills. That would in deed be compatible with the
existing acreages. She had also signed the letter that Mrs. Stout read.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Waido to address the issue of expanding the Urban Growth Area
boundary. Why was it appropriate and whether or not the City had any overall policies in
terms of what they might look to in the eastern and southern area or were they just going to
see individual little boundary change requests come in as people might be interested in
annexing.
Mr. Waido replied that first he wanted to define what the Urban Growth Area was. An area
that both the City and County agree was the appropriate area for urban density development
in terms of residential density's and urban types of commercial and business industrial uses.
The area that had been designated through an inter -governmental agreement. It was thought
that this area could be adequately provided with urban level services through the phasing or
expansion of existing facilities. That was both in terms of hard services such as utilities, water,
sewer, power, streets and other sort of non in the ground services, police and fire protection,
parks and recreation facilities, social services and so on. The Urban Growth Area boundary
was based primarily upon an urban service area study that the City and County and the Special
Purpose Utilities Districts did in the late 70's. When the boundary was established through the
formal agreement in 1980, it was extended out the Interstate corridor in recognition that this
corridor would become extremely important to the community Fort Collins in the future as a
business, commercial residential, industrial area because of the major transportation facility
that existed in the area and also existing utility lines. He had a map showing sewer district
lines, sewer being one of the primary or major utilities to determine urbanization. The black
line on this map represent the major trunk facilities of the Boxelder Sanitation District, the
blue and red indicate current city facilities and blue and red being proposed extensions. Black
lines in the southern part being the major mains of the South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
So as they could see basically the entire Urban Growth Area boundary which was the dark grey
area was currently or could be served with minor extensions of those major facilities.
When the boundary was established in 1980, quite frankly, they did not know at that time that
the boundary was dividing this property. The concern in 1980 was to insure that, and the
reason that it was the two quarter section north and south of Prospect, was to insure that when
development occurred that the City had influence over the Interstate interchange likewise
14
•
when the boundary was amended in 1984 to bring in the Anheuser Busch properties and a new
interchange built at County Road 50, they again amended the boundary to insure that both the
quarter sections on the eastside of the Interstate were brought in. The policy again, is that the
Urban Growth Area was the area that was appropriate for urban development. It was also the
policy for the city to annex this area within the Urban Growth Area as opportunities arise and
they do evaluate those on a case by case basis. It was possible that other incremental changes
would be made.
A major change and a significant change to the agreement was made in 1988 and that was to
allow the city the opportunity to consider the annexation of property outside the Urban
Growth Area boundary, so the city under the new agreement had the opportunity to evaluate
the property from its own perspective its own service potential perspective and make a
unilateral decision as to whether or not that property would be incorporated into the city limits
or not. Prior to 1988 an Urban Growth Area boundary amendment involved both the City
Council and the County Commissioners to amend a boundary and that took a process and then
the city had to go through a secondary process to deal with annexation. The County essentially
said, "That if the City feels that they want to annex the property and assume the responsibility
of servicing and so forth, then that was basically their decision". The County wanted to
notified of those annexations and wanted an opportunity to look at what might be the impact
of annexation of County facilities but essentially was saying "City that was your decision if
you want to annex that ground". He has a letter from the County that addressed the County's
perspective and the County was recommending approval of this annexation.
Other that the agreements and the policies within the intergovernmental agreement and within
the City's own comprehensive plan, there was no outer boundary that exists for the eastern
portion of the Urban Growth Area nor the northern portion of the Urban Growth Area similar
that exist to the west with the foothills region and on the southern boundary with the open
space corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins. There had not been a detailed or a looking
at how far east that boundary may go, however, he thought through testimony this evening they
had heard that the boundary may have difficulty extending much further to the east due to
the existing or the potential of large lot County Subdivisions. First of all those would be
difficult to annex if they were under individual ownership and they would be difficult to
jump over Incorporation of such large lot areas into the city was a fiscal concern and it would
have to be evaluations (cost/benefit). The reason the guidance system was set at minimum of
three units per acre residential density was that the very lowest residential density could go
and begin to pay its own way in terms of taxes generated and services demanded by that type
of density. So as we get to get out toward these large lot subdivisions it was a major fiscal
consideration by the city upon annexation of those and are we going to absorb the service
responsibility for areas of that nature.
Member Cottier stated she was asking for this explanation for the benefit of everyone here as
to how we approach Urban Growth Area boundary questions and what might be expected in
the future to.
Mr. Waido replied in terms of a policy there was only one policy which begins to limit the city's
annexation in a certain direction and that was along the southern boundary. It did say that the
city should not annex below County Road 32 or below Fossil Creek Reservoir. In terms of a
policy, in terms of limitation of expansion of the Urban Growth Area, that was the only
written policy within the agreement. They did have a physical problem with the foothills area
but there were no there physical or policy problems with northern or eastern expansion of the
Urban Growth Area. Again they would evaluate them on a case by case basis.
15
Member Walker asked one of the concerns of some of the people that spoke to them was the
issue of the Boxelder Sanitation System being currently used to its maximum capacity. Could
he address the issues associated with this property using that sanitation system.
Mr. Waido replied that Boxelder for the past 15 years had been nearing its capacity within its
existing treatment facility. When you talk about capacity of the Boxelder Sanitation District
that was what you were talking about was their existing treatment facility. We know that
treatment capability was nearing its maximum and they were in the process of planning for
expansions and were discussing with the city of a possible combination of the sanitation
district with the city system. Its a relatively simple engineering task since the sanitation
districts treatment facility was across the river from the city's treatment facility. A tie line
or a simple line to connect the existing Boxelder system with the City system which has excess
capacity could be handled. Again that takes some negotiation between the board of directors
of the Boxelder Sanitation District and the City of Fort Collins. He was also not aware in
detail what had been approved under the 208 Wastewater Management Planning process, what
expansions could occur within the Boxelder Sanitation Treatment Facility itself. We know that
the existing treatment facility was nearing capacity but he was not well enough versed to talk
about whether they had expansion plans that had been approved under the 208 law.
Member Walker asked about the concern of widening Prospect Road at some point down the
road and the irrigation ditch and could he address that.
Mr. Waido replied that there was no question that if Prospect Road was to be widened, it would
create problems either north of the road or south of the road. South of the road with existing
residences and north of the road with the irrigation ditch. Again the need and the timing for
Prospect Road to be widened was at the time of development and was normally not an issue at
the time of annexation because they did not have any detailed plans specifically before us
where we know how wide it has to be or those types of issues where intersections were going
to occur. It was a problem for the developer because he was going to have to deal with the
ditch and the development process that, there was a whole series of alternatives available. The
ditch could be rerouted, it could be covered over. There were a multitude of options that could
be used. The ditch could be combined with another irrigation system somewhere else to
transport water. We do not know those answers because we do not have a development plan
before them. There was no question that as the property develops the issue of the irrigation
canal would have to be addressed. Prospect Road would be subjected to any improvements that
would be demanded by the density and intensity of uses that eventually end up on the property.
Prospect Road was designated as an arterial street, that means that is will function as a major
transportation link in the city street network. Its function and engineering with our usually
go hand in hand and in order for a road to function as an arterial, improvements need to be
made. It could still function as an arterial with a two lane road or a four lane road with
minimum engineering widths but something will have to happen with the ditch in the long run
but he did not think anybody was ready to address it, neither himself or any transportation
engineer at this point in time.
Member O'Dell asked that if it were determined that this particular development warranted
an increase in the width of the road, where would the width come from, the north or the south
and was there already a dedicated right-of-way increase right-of-way on the southern part of
the road.
Mr. Waido replied there was a 60 foot right-of-way for Prospect Road. Thirty feet on either
side of the center line when a development comes in and they were not quite certain. The
engineering standard for an arterial was a 100 foot right-of-way with a 70 foot street. Given
16
existing development on either side of the street, the city has been known to offset the road
and right of way to accommodate existing development.
Member Klataske asked about the T-Transition zone and the map showed the other zones would
be with a PUD condition and was there such a thing as a PUD condition on the T-Transition
zone.
Mr. Waido replied it would be moot since the T zone did not allow any development, there was
no need to require any development in the T zone to go through the PUD process.
Member Klataske asked when it was zoned then would meet a condition that what ever zoned
proposed for it would have a PUD condition.
Mr. Waido replied they would make that recommendation at the time and hopefully the board
would follow that recommendation and the City Council to and place a PUD condition on what
ever zone it ends up into.
Member Klataske asked if the annexation if it were approved create any enclaves that then
would be then subject to annexation on a statutory period.
Mr. Waido replied no this annexation did not.
Member O'Dell asked if Mr. Waido what kind of uses were allowed in the H-B and I-P zones.
Mr. Waido replied with a PUD condition, no uses were allowed by right in those zones.
Everything would have to come to the board and be approved through them. Some of the uses
allowed in the highway business zone, the designation of the zone was for automobile oriented
businesses. The uses permitted were any use in the R-M district, a residential district which
allows up to a duplex on a minimum 6,000 square foot lot, and any use permitted in the B-L,
limited business zone, banks, savings and loans, standard and fast food restaurants, indoor
theaters, membership clubs, offices, clinics, personal service shops, retail stores, laundry and
dry cleaning outlets, primarily serving retail customers, limited indoor recreation uses, small
veterinary clinics, aquarium shops, public utility installation and accessory businesses. Even
though the highway business zone was designated for auto -related uses, there really not very
many auto related uses as typically come to mind as auto related uses, a drive thru restaurant,
automobile sales, gasoline stations those types of things, they are not listed as uses by right in
the Highway Business zone. Those have to be going through the PUD process. It was sort of
a double whammy by putting the PUD condition on the Highway Business zone in an attempt
to control highway or automobile related uses because they already have to go through the PUD
process whether or not there was a PUD condition on the property or not.
Member O'Dell asked about the I-P zone.
Mr. Waido replied that the I-P zone would refer back to the I-L zone. The I-P district, the
designation in the code was for light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses.
The I-P district was designed for industrial uses in proximity to areas zoned for residential use
and along arterial streets. Again it refers back to the I-L zone and the I-L zone list uses such
as automobile repair, automobile sales, builders supply yards and lumber yards, off ices, parking
lots, personal service shops, veterinary hospitals, plumbing and electrical, carpenter shops,
printing and newspaper shops, warehouses, utility installations, assembly packaging,
installation of gauges, electric, or electronic instruments or similar equipment, recreational
uses. It also has the following light industrial uses, manufacturing of electronic instruments,
17