Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 36 90, A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCIL (5)Developent Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins November 15, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Coun it TH: James M. Davis, Dir r of Development Services , FM: Tom Peterson, it g Ken Waido, Chief Planner / RE: Land Use Policy Options for Uses at the Edge of the UGA Boundary The Mayor requested staff develop some land use planning policy options to aid in making decisions concerning the zoning of the Galatia Annexation. The Galatia Annexation was initially scheduled for a public hearing before the Council on November 20, however, the applicant has requested a continuation of .the item until the Council's December 18 meeting. Staff has attempted to look at the issue in a more generic context of dealing with the zoning of annexations at the edge of the UGA boundary or within the UGA for properties near existing "rural" county residential subdivisions. As the City annexes additional territory within the UGA, conflicts between existing rural large lot residential uses and potential urban uses will continue to arise. Defining the Problem: How can new urban development within the UGA be made compatible with existing rural large lot residential developments? The primary issues of the problem focus on land use "compatibility" and appropriate "transition" between existing and new development. New, or additional policies dealing with compatibility and transition, if adopted by the Council, could be used by staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the Council in assigning zoning districts to properties as they annex into the city. Before listing and discussing the policy options, a review of the current policies as contained in the City's LAND USE POLICIES PLAN and the UGA Agreement is presented. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 UGA Boundary Key Exst. SuWivis Exst. MRD CAW XF WoF�IH s TIMWATH LL FAI FA COL A OD TN RN.. "'••? j9 D s 10 w ■ 11 wa.d+ nn 12 Ic 821 E 1 ` rR-I FA1 ♦ i e� \ I 40 FA �•: �•.�:. I ra; 141 . 7a _Tlpy *46. C 1 "+ \ !L 491, 4. FA Dad • 7f�:: t.:::::. c a Alf "' 1T ..met, 23 -r--- 24 y<1, ' I Y ♦ f l FA SNOW 28 �M' Y7; q �• L: r � { I � y s� 13 '133 I35 ( ; 36 ` 3 \ sm ■ \ Ids � I ,•: � .. Lr cAl 1 1] Current Policies: I. Policies from the LAND USE POLICIES PLAN: #3. The City shall promote: a. Maximum utilization of land within the city; d. The location of residential development which is close to employ- ment, recreation, and shopping facilities. Policy #3 is intended to encourage efficient utilization of land within the city and introduces the concept of mixed land use. The utilization of land is directly related to the costs of providing urban services, generally speaking the higher the density the lower the cost of providing urban services. #9. The City will cooperate with the County in establishing an urban growth area surrounding Fort Collins. #12. Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area. #13. Rural density residential development usually at one or less units to the acre shall not be allowed in 'the urban growth area. These policies describe the levels of residential density which are considered to be appropriate/inappropriate within the UGA. The Urban Land Institute's three volume MANAGEMENT & CONTROL OF GROWTH (1975), indicated that for communities which rely on property tax as a major revenue source, residential densities below 2-3 units per acre did not "pay their own way" in terms of taxes paid for services provided. Thus, from a fiscal perspective for such communities, residential densities should be 2-3 units per acre at a minimum, preferably higher. The fiscal impact of low residential densities has not been investigated in detail within the Fort Collins urban area since the City relies more on sale tax revenues to pay for the provision of services. #20. Land use, site planning, and urban design criteria shall be developed to promote pleasant, functional and understandable inter -relationships between land uses. #74. Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban design elements) should be provided between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the concept of a mixture of land uses. These policies indicate that compatibility between uses is a primary goal of the City's Plan. The policies also indicate that there could be a variety of techniques used to assure compatibility between uses. These policies form the basis of the "All -Development" criteria within the LDGS. #75. Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities. This policy encourages a mix of housing densities within residential neighbor- hoods. It essentially indicates that large expanses of a single type of housing is not good for the community. Il. Policies from the UGA Agreement: #1.1 That the City and County shall establish an urban growth area surrounding the City of Fort Collins and mutually agree that said area is appropriate for the location and development of urban land uses and urban residential densities, except as limited otherwise by agreement, such as the Foothills area, which due to the environmental uniqueness of the area, is not appropriate for urban densities. Policy #1.1 defines the basic purpose of the UGA, that is to identify an area appropriate for urbanization. The policy also indicates that certain areas due to their proximity and/or contiguity may be included within the UGA but may not be appropriate for urbanization. The City and County may agree to limit development within the UGA to a level less than urban, such as the limitation placed on the Foothills area. The City's R-F, Foothills Residential, .zoning district was developed to be applied to annexations near the foothills. The only other area in which development is "limited" is the Fort Collins and Loveland "open space corridor" covered by Policy 1.8 and discussed below. #1.3 That the County would approve only urban level developments (greater than 2 units/acre) within the Urban Growth Area, except for those areas otherwise specified and agreed to by the City and County. Policy #1.3 helps define the minimum density of residential development. The policy is similar to Policy #12 from the City's LAND USE POLICIES PLAN. (see above). The policy was intended to relate density to the cost of providing urban services. The policy also indicates, as did Policy #1.1, that the City and County can. agree to allow non -urban densities in specific portions of the UGA. 1.6 That the policy of the City is to consider the annexation of all properties within the unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon as said property becomes eligible for annexation. Policy #1.6 establishes the basic annexation policy for the City, that is to essentially annex all the properties within the UGA. Annexation of the properties within the UGA provides certain benefits and means certain obliga- tions to the City.. These are listed below: Benefits: 1. the City gains control over the property as to its ultimate development through the application of the City's land use regulations; 2. the City can apply its development standards 3. the City gains additional property tax; 4. the City can collect additional sales and use taxes; 5. the City collects additional development fees; and 6. the County government has reduced pressure to provide development related urban services, such as police services and road maintenance. Obligations: 1. the City, in most cases, would provide utility services; 2. the City is required to expand its police protection; 3. the City is required to extend its street maintenance program; 4. the City could be required to expand mass transit services; and 5. the City could be required to expand parks and recreational programs. 1.9 To the extent 'permitted by law, the City would agree not to annex south of County Road 32 or Fossil Creek Reservoir. Policy 41.8 indicates the City would not annex into the Fort Collins and Loveland "open space corridor." (A similar policy in the Loveland UGA Agree- ment limits Loveland's annexations to the areas south of County Road 30. The intent of the policy is to keep Fort Collins urbanization and Loveland urban- zation physically and visually separated. To date, neither city has annexed property beyond the limits established within the UGA Agreement. However; the County has responded to development applications and has permitted devel- opment to occur in the "open space corridor" threatening the open space nature of the corridor. This is a separate issue which may need to be considered by Council in the future. The existing policies, presented above, are applied by the Planning and Zoning Board at the time of their review of annexation petitions. In actual practice, the application of the policies has cause very few problems during the review of annexation requests. The criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUID- ANCE SYSTEM are applied at the time a development proposal is reviewed by the Board. The utilization of existing policies and procedures reinforces the LDGS as containing the necessary criteria to adequately determine the appro- priateness of land uses and can deal with the issues of compatibility and transition. Policy Options: #1, Utilize Existing Policies.. #2, Adopt County UGA Land Use Compatibility Policies. #3, Utilize the City's R-E, Estate Residential Zoning District. Discussion of Policy Options: Option #1, Utilize Existing Policies: This option proposes that no new policies or procedures are needed to deal with the zoning of property at the time of annexation. It is presented as an option for use as a baseline to compare changes within other proposed policy options. Currently, each an is reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Each request succeeds or fails based on its own merits and particular issues. It has been the practice of the City to place a PUD zoning condition on property as it annexes into the city. The PUD condition requires all future development proposals to be reviewed against the criteria contained in the LAND DEVEL- OPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM. The LDGS criteria are thus used to make decisions concerning the appropriateness of land uses and the compatibility, and proper transition, between existing and proposed uses. The LDGS system does not eliminate the potential of controversy, but it does include an extensive citizen participation process to assure that issues are identified and addressed. Policy Option #2, Adopt County UGA Land Use Compatibility Policies. When the UGA was established in 1980, the potential conflict between existing larger lot residential developments and new urban development was identified and a series of new policies were added to the Larimer County LAND USE PLAN. These policies were designed to assure compatibility between existing rural density residential subdivisions and new urban uses which may develop in the UGA prior to annexation into the city. This option proposes that the City adopt similar policies as those presented below and utilize the policies either in assigning zoning districts to properties as they annex into the city, or in making decisions concerning land use types and densities at the master plan stage of development.. Policies from the UGA AGREEMENT which modified the Larimer County LAND USE PLAN: 2. New residential development In the Urban Growth Area shall mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent existing residential development by maintaining the character and density of the existing development along common boundaries. The degree of mitigation will depend on the character of existing and proposed development and the type of common boundary they will share. Greater mitigation will be required along simple property boundaries than where major arterial streets separate properties. This policy establishes the requirement for new development to mitigate impacts on adjacent development. The policy also indicates that on a case=by- case basis different approaches to mitigation could be used based on individual site characteristics. 3. Density transition from existing lower density residential development to a density allowed in the Urban Growth Area must be handled within and individual project through open space buffering, site planning, or other urban design approaches. Essentially this policy states that it is the responsibility of new development to provide buffering to existing development. Again, the policy indicates several different approaches could be used to assure compatibility. Larger properties, with areas available for buffering could approach mitigation through the use of from site planning techniques. Policies #2 and #3 above are similar to the "Neighborhood Compatibility" criteria contained in the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM which require developments to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood rela- tive to architectural design, scale, bulk and building height, disposition and orientation of buildings on the property, and visual integrity. The LDGS also requires the conflicts that are presumed to exist between proposed development and surrounding land uses must be effectively mitigated. 4. Residential development proposals less than 10 acres in size adjacent to existing lower density residential development cannot be of a density greater than fifty percent (50%) higher than the adjacent existing development's density. (No transition area required). This policy places development density limitations on certain properties within the UGA based on their size. According to the policy, properties of less than 10 acres in size adjacent to an existing large lot residential development will not be permitted to develop at urban densities: Due to their small size and proximity to existing rural residential uses development at urban densities would be an intrusion into the neighborhood._ The properties are considered to be too small to allow alternative approaches to assure compatibility to adjacent uses. Thus, the only way to assure compatibility is to place a land use development density limitation on the properties. The policy does not dictate that the new development must be the same as adjacent development, but does limit the increase in density of new development to fifty percent over the density of existing adjacent development. For example, if the density of an existing rural residential subdivision is 1 unit per acre (43,560 square feet minimum lot size), the maximum density of new development could not be greater than 1.5 units per acre (29,040 square feet minimum lot size). Again, these development limitations apply only to lots of less than ten acres in size with no transition area required as part of the new development. In summary, these policies; while similar to LDGS criteria, go beyond site planning criteria and indicate the only way to assure the compatibility of new development adjacent to existing development is to place a land use develop- ment density limitation on new development. These policies would essentially expand the pockets of "rural" density areas within the UGA which could cause a fiscal problem in the provision of urban services. Option #3, Utilize the City's R-E, Estate Residential Zoning District. The City% zoning code presently contains the R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, which was modified in 1989 to increase the minimum lot size from 9,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet. The purpose of the R-E zone, as stated in the zoning code, is for low density residential areas usually located in outlying areas and for larger lot residential subdivisions initially approved by the county government and subsequently annexed into the city. In the case of an existing county subdivision annexed into the city; the legal lot size is the lot size as it existed at the time of annexation. This was done in order to preserve, as much as possible, the life style within the subdivision as it existed prior to annexation. The R-E zone contains a limited list of uses -by -right and does not allow development to be proposed according to the PUD code (LDGS). The City could adopt a policy to apply the R-E zone to portions of annexa- tions which are adjacent to existing rural residential subdivisions. The application of the R-E zone would be similar to the effect of the policies presented in the previous option which essentially stated the only way to guarantee compatibility of new development with existing rural residential development is to restrict the density of new development; alternative site plan types of approaches to compatibility are assume to not work and are unneces- sary. Proposed policy under Option #3: ' It shall be the policy of the City of Fort Collins to apply the R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, to the portions of properties which annex into the city which are adjacent to larger lot residential developments. The application of the R-E zone is to assure compati- bility of new development with existing uses and to preserve the life styles of existing areas. The fiscal impact on urban services of this option is similar to that of the previous option, in that, pockets of rural densities would be expanded within the UGA. Further Discussion on the Policy Options: In developing the land use policy options, the planning staff had to consider two essential concepts of urbanization within the UGA. The first concept deals with the "reduction of development density" from a central core. Many consider proper urban planning to be the controlled reduction of density from a central core to outlying areas. The classic model of urbanization in this theory is similar to a target with concentric circles where the "bulls eye" of the target is the area of highest density and intensity and each concentric circle represents a reduction of this density until it merges with rural lands on the fringe. The second basic concept deals with compatibility of uses. Following the target theory of urbanization discussed above in the previous paragraph, many consider that there must be a series in declining density of uses each designed to "buffer" higher intensity uses from lower intensity uses. The classic hierarchy of uses reduces the intensity of uses along a continuum from indus- trial or high intensity commercial; to low intensity industrial and commercial; to office and other professional service uses; to high density residential; to medium density residential; to low density residential; to rural non -farm uses; finally to rural farm uses. According to this theory, higher intensity uses are incompatible with lower intensity uses. The historic development of Fort Collins has not followed the single core model of urbanization. Fort Collins has developed with several sites of "higher intensity." Some of these higher intensity sites are located along the edges of the current limit of urbanization. For example, the downtown Central Business District, the CSU Main Campus, the Centre for Advanced Technology, and the South College Avenue commercial corridor, including the Foothills Fashion Mall, etc.; can be though of as a linear central core of the city. Urbanization could have proceeded as elongated concentric zones out from this central core centered on College Avenue. Instead however, other sites have developed which currently, or will in the future, rival the intensity of the central linear core. These sites include the CSU Foothills Campus, the Valley Air Park, Poudre Valley Hospital, Woodward Governor, the Golden Meadows Business Park, the Oak Ridge Business Park, Anheuser-Busch, Teledyne=Waterpik, the Seven Lakes/Prospect East Business Parks, Timberline Road corridor, Hewlett-Packard, and eventually the I-25 corridor. Because of this development pattern, the application of "buffer" uses becomes more complicated and may not be the correct approach to managing urbanization and the compatibility of uses in the Fort Collins area. The City's Comprehensive Plan has recognized and supported the historical development pattern of the city. The LAND USE POLICIES PLAN established policies which encourage the expansion of other high intensity sites for economic, social, transportation, and environmental reasons. As such, the City's zoning code contains a PUD ordinance, the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUID- ANCE SYSTEM, which is designed to properly manage this type of urbaniza- tion and provide for the compatibility of potentially incompatible land uses. A major assumption of the LDGS is that, in most cases, proper design can be utilized to make adjacent uses compatible. There are many examples within the community where design provides proper mitigation between different types of land uses. Another consideration, in the development of the land use policy options, was the UGA boundary itself. The UGA boundary has not been established as the ultimate limit of urbanization in the Fort Collins area. Current policies only limit the expansion of the UGA boundary to the west (foothills area) and to the south (open space corridor). No such policies exist for the general directions to the east or north. Without such policies, staff feels it would be unwise to adopt policies which encourage low density development at the edges of the UGA boundary. Such development would either preclude further expan- sions of the UGA boundary or would increase the costs of providing urban services. . While no policies exist which limit UGA boundary expansions to the east or north, County land use decision making may have the affect of creating a "de facto" limitation on UGA boundary expansions through the approval of Minor Residential Developments (MRDs) to the east of I-2-5. The area east of I-2-5 is outside the Municipal Expansion Area (UGA) designation in the Larimer County LAND USE PLAN. The area is designated as "Rural" which is designed to protect agricultural uses and other low intensity uses requiring large areas and low service needs. Although designated as rural, the area is predominantly zoned FA-1, Farming, which allows development with a density of 1 unit per 2.29 acres (minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet). A density of 1 unit per 2.29 acres is considered rural non -farm in the County's Plan, thus, there is an inconsistency between the County's plan and existing zoning. MRDs are part of the Exemption process to the County's Subdivision Regula- tions. The following basic limitation apply to a MRD request. 1. The MRD process can be used to divide a single parcel into no more than 4 lots. 2. The minimum lot size of each lot must conform to the minimum lot size required by the underlying zoning district. 3. A parcel can be subjected to the MRD process only once. Further attempts to create additional lots must be reviewed under the County"s Subdivision regulations. In mapping approved MRDs east of 1-25, the pattern of MRDs, and approved subdivisions, indicates that problems could be encountered if the City desired to extend the UGA boundary or annex into the area at some point in the future. (Two maps are attached, one shows the locations of MRDs and subdivi- sions approved by the County east of I=25, and the other shows the existing County zoning pattern for the same area.) If MRD approvals continue to be perpetuated in this area, a solid line of larger lot developments could exist which would effectively block potential annexations and UGA expansions, or make the cost of providing services very expensive. Staff suggests this area, and the MRD process be re-evaluated in the review of the UGA Agreement to be conducted in 1991. Options to expand the UGA boundary, or develop UGA expansion limitation policies, similar to those which exist for the west and south, will have to be studied by staff. C Staff Findings: The objective of this memorandum was to present Council with some land use planning policy options to aid in making decisions concerning the zoning of the Galatia Annexation and, on a larger scale, discuss some possible ways to mitigate conflicts between urban developments adjacent to existing rural large lot residential subdivisions within the UGA. Staff finds that the existing policies and criteria of the LDGS, when appropriately applied by the Planning and Zoning Board, are adequate to address the issues of compatibility and transition. Staff believes no new policies are needed.