HomeMy WebLinkAboutGALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING 11.20.90 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - 36 90, A - REPORTS - FIRST READINGAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 16 a-c
DATE:
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: November 20, 1990
Ken Waido
SUBJECT:
Postponing Consideration of Items Pertaining to the Galatia Annexation and
Zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends postponing consideration of these items to December 18.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 90-165 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Galatia Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1990, Annexing Property
Known as the Galatia Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1990, Amending Chapter 29
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Commonly Known as the Zoning
Ordinance, and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in
the Galatia Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 235.5 acres located north of
East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25. The requested zonings are for
H-B, Highway Business (28.0 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to
the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (64.5
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 Larimer County. This
is a voluntary annexation.
On November 13, the applicant, Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design, submitted
a letter (copy attached) requesting postponement of consideration of this item
to December 18. Mr. Ward has been unable to complete legal descriptions of the
proposed zoning districts for the annexation. Staff has sent a letter to
adjacent property owners and residents informing them of the applicants'
postponement request. Adoption of the Consent Calendar will postpone these
items to December 18.
APPLICANT: Pavlakis Realty OWNERS: Galatia Partnership
c/o Cityscape Urban Design c/o George Pavlakis
3030 S. College Ave #200 5670 E. Evans Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Denver, CO 80222
0 EXCEPT:
That tract of land described at reception number 88059158, recorded
in Larimer County Records.
The above described tract contains 27.993 acres and is subject to
all easements, rights -of -way or restrictions now on record or
existing.
IB Zone Description:
A tract of land located in Section 15 and 22, Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado,
being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section
15 as bearing North 00013'00" East, from a found nail in bridge deck
at the Southwest corner of said Section 15 to a Aluminum Cap at the
West Quarter corner of said Section 15 and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15,; thence along
the South line of said Southwest Quarter, South 89°57'48" East,
1201.96 feet; thence, South 15°37'12" West, 31.14 feet to the South
right-of-way of County Road 44; thence along said South right-of-
way South 89°57'48" East, 332.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
• thence, North 09022'51" East, 791.67 feet to a point on the
centerline described in Book 1531, Page 759, recorded in Larimer
County Records; thence along said centerline the following five
courses, North 55°01'00" West, 52.51 feet; thence, North 76022'00"
West, 157.24 feet; thence, North 85°02'00" West, 550.69 feet; thence
North 67°55'00" West, 94.75 feet; thence, North 54°51'00" West,
932.90 feet to the East right-of-way of Interstate Highway 25;
thence along said right-of-way, North 00°12'24" East, 1241.67 feet
to the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15;
thence departing said right-of-way and along said North line, South
89°37'50" East, 2588.49 feet to the Northeast corner of said
Southwest Quarter; thence along the East line of the Southwest
Quarter, South 00007'44" West, 1331.86 feet to the Northwest corner
of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 15;
thence along the North line of the South Half of the Southeast
Quarter of said Section 15, South 89°50'13" East, 1061.32 feet;
thence, South 00°09'47" West, 200.00 feet to a point on a curve
concave to the Southeast, having a central angle of 90°08'30" radius
of 610.00 feet and the chord of which bears South 45005'31" West,
863.74 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 959.70 feet; thence,
South 00*01'16" West, 549.85 feet to the South right-of-way of
County Road 44; thence along said South right-of-way, North
89°58'44" West, 451.78 feet; thence, North 89°57'48" West, 1120.95
feet to the Point of Beginning.
C�
0
The above described tract contains 142.955 acres and is subject to
all easements, rights -of -ways or restrictions now on record or
existing.
RP Zone Description:
A tract of land located in Section 15, 14, 22 and 23, Township 7
North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section
15 as bearing North 00°13'00" East, from a found nail in bridge deck
at the Southwest corner of said Section 15 to a Aluminum Cap at the
West Quarter corner of said Section 15 and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15; thence along
the South line of said Southwest Quarter, South 89°57'48" East,
1201.96 feet; thence, South 15°37'12" West, 31.14 feet to the South
right-of-way of County Road 44; thence along said South right-of-
way South 89'57'48" East, 1453.81 feet; thence South 89°58'44" East,
451.78 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 00°01'16" East,
549.85 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Southeast having
a central angle of 90°08'30", a radius of 610.00 feet and the chord
of which bears North 45°05'31" East, 863.74 feet; thence along the
arc of said curve 959.70 feet; thence, North 00°09'47" East, 200.00
feet to a point on the North line of the South Half of the Southeast
Quarter of said Section 15; thence along the North line of the South
Half of said Southeast Quarter and the Easterly prolongation
thereof, South 89°50'13" East, 1608.00 feet to the East right-of-
way of County Road 5; thence along said East right-of-way, South
00°10'50" West, 1355.87 feet to the South right-of-way of County
Road 44; thence along said South right-of-way, North 89°58'44" West,
2216.23 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described tract contains 64.530 acres and is subject to
all easements, rights -of -ways or restrictions now on record or
existing.
Section 2. That the zoning granted herein is expressly conditioned upon
the entire above -described property being developed as a planned unit
development in accordance with the Ordinances of the City.
Section 3. That the Director of Engineering is hereby authorized and
directed to amend said Zoning District Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
3 •
0
• Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published
this 20th day of November, A.D. 1990, and to be presented for final passage on
the 4th day of December, A.D. 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of December, A.D. 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Development Services
Planning Department
L J
Citv of Fort Collins
November 13, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FM: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning )/_ �,/¢�y'�_r
RE: Galatia Annexation /�`�"�
The applicant of the Galatia Annexation, Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban
Design, has submitted a letter requesting a continuation of the item from the
City Council's November 20, 1990, meeting to the Council's December 18,
meeting. The applicant has been unable to submit the necessary legal descrip-
tions for the requested zonings within the annexation.
Attached is a copy of the applicant's letter. I am also attaching all of the
support documents, maps, letters, minutes, etc. for this item.
•
2ti I \orth ('nllrV;e ,Avenue • I'.O. Box 580 • Fort C ollins, (�O `0922-0;80 • t303) 221-6750
E
con@@ o
urban design, inc.
3030 south college ave., suite 200
fort collins, colorado 80525
(303) 226-4074
November 13, 1990
City Council
City of Fort Collins
c/o Ken Waido
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Council Members;
Pavlakis and Company would like to request that consideration
of the Galatia Annexation and Zoning Petitions, be continued to
the December 18th City Council Meeting, to allow time to comp!ELe
. preparation of the revised Legal Descriptions for the Zoning
Districts recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Thank —you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
cc: George Pavlakis, Pavlakis & Company
Lloyd McLaughlin, RBD, Inc.
0
ITEM GALATIA ANNEXATION & ZONING
NUMBER 36-90
•
Galatia Annexation Zoning Requests
,n •
a
O
U
C�
•
•
September 6, 1990
City of Fort Collins
City Council
c/o Development Services
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Council Members;
urban design, inc.
3030 south college ave.. suite 200
fort collins, colorado 80525
(303) 226-4074
The owner of the Galatia property would like to offer the
following information to assist in your review of the proposed
annexation and Urban Growth Area Amendment affecting this site:
1. The subject property is under a single ownership, and has
been a single parcel for at least the past 18 years. It is
our understanding that it not legally acceptable to use the
annexation process as a means of subdividing a property.
2. Although the current UGA boundary line is located only one
half mile east of I-25 at this location, the Urban Growth
Area does extend one mile east of I-25 to County Road 5 a
short distance to the north of the Galatia property.
3. When the UGA boundary was established, the City Staff did not
do an exhaustive ownership study of all properties affected.
Staff has indicated that, had they realized the configuration
of ownership of the Galatia property, the UGA would have most
likely been extended to C.R. 5, as it is to the north of the
property.
4. The City"s Master Street Plan, Water Master Plan, and planned
service extensions by Light and Power, all have been designed
to provide urban services east to C.R. 5 at this location.
5. The Intergovernmental Agreement indicates that:
— A UGA boundary amendment can be granted when proof is
presented of a technical mistake in delineating the
present UGA boundary.
— When a voluntary annexation petition is approved by a
municipality for an area which is located outside the
current UGA district, the annexed area shall be
considered inside the Urban Growth Area.
— Effective January 1, 1988, a UGA boundary which divides
an existing property may be administratively amended to
conform to the property ownership line.
•
•
•
•
•
0
�D��GCQ o 0
urban design, inc.
6. Recent completion of the diamond interchange at Prospect Road
and the initial work on the Prospect Corridor Study have
indicated that Prospect-s importance as an entryway into Fort
Collins is equal to that of Highway 14.
7. Because of physical constraints (irrigation ditches and
existing intersections on the south side of Prospect), and
typical spacing of future signalized intersections, the best
location for a collector — east of the frontage road — to
intersect Prospect is east of the current UGA boundary line.
For the above reasons, we believe that amending the UGA
boundary and allowing the Galatia Annexation to proceed through
the review process is appropriate.
It is our understanding that the Council will consider the
Urban Growth Area Amendment and the Resolution scheduling the
public hearings for the Galatia Annexation at your September 18
meeting. If we can provide any addional information or
clarification, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
cc: George Pavlakis
Tim Beatty
asked about the
Overland Trail extension.
•
Ken Waido
responded the
proposed extension of Overland
Trail has been
relocated to
the flat portion
of ground between Drake and 38E.
Ken explained
development
activity would
be the actual deciding factor of
how and when
Overland Trail
develops but
the City is currently reserving
options for this
development.
Karen Johnson, Highlands West resident, asked how the developer arrived at
the number of 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 City's policy to encourage mixed use •
development and felt this proposal was not an abrupt change from the
surrounding areas. Member O'Dell agreed.
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, representing the applicant, explained the natural
boundaries, as well as highway frontage road constraints, were used to
determine the zoning boundaries.
DATE: November 20, 1990 -2- 1 ITEM NUMBER: 16 a-c
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 235.5 acres located
north of East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25. The requested zonings are
for H-B, Highway Business (28.0 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres),
to the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (64.5
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 map for 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 (UGA)
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 City's notice of the proposed annexation in a
letter dated September 11, 1990 (copy attached). The County requested that all
adjacent street right-of-ways be included in the annexation. (All street right-
of-ways are included as required by state annexation laws.) The County letter
also contained a general comment that plans for extensions of urban services
should be in place before annexations occur, particularly when an annexation
will go beyond the UGA boundary. (Copies of the City's Master Street Plan and
the Water and Sewer Master Plans were provided to the County with the City's
notice to the County of the pending annexation. These plans show the planned
extension of services for this area. Water service could be made available to
this site from both the City or the ELCO Water District. Sewer service is
available from the Boxelder Sanitation District. The availability of services
is covered in greater detail in the next paragraph.) The County indicates the
annexation of this property will not create any negative impacts on County
facilities and services. The County recommends approval of the annexation.
In considering utility services, an existing 24 Boxelder Sanitation District
sewer main crosses the property at its northwestern corner. An existing 2" 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
1-25 along Prospect Road and then turn north dividing the subject property along
the current UGA boundary. Staff believes 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 Poudre Valley REA.
If the property is annexed, electric utility service would be provided by the
City. The costs of extending water, sewer, and electric utility services would
be paid by the developer except for facilities needed on an area -wide basis
(oversizing).
City Departments' and other agencies reviewed the request and submitted the
following comments regarding the proposed annexation:
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-l. 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 would be 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 developmeni was governed by City requirements.
Don Zimmerman, 1716 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-
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 Carroil requested all questions be stated before the process of giving
answers begin.
Mr. Ekblad asked timing on enlarging Prospect Road from 1-25 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, 1733 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 withou* 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-
•
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, #63-89D
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 Silverplume.
Member O'Dell questioned what Rossborough Park to the south was used for
and Ms. Whetstone replied it was open space for unstructured activities. 1 0
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.
•
U
• 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
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.
10 0
Annexation of this area was consistent will the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement
which allows for the circumstance where a property is bi-sectcd by the urban growth area.
Mr. Ward explained a map of City and County zoning and annexations in the northeast area
along 1-25. 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 1g 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 sonic
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 11
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 arc 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:
I. 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 inaustrial 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.
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 •
9
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 a better 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
0 13
border this. tic 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 end re Urban Growth Area boundary which was the dark grey
area was currently or could be servgd 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 prp erty. The concern in 1980 was to insure that, and the
reason that it was the two quarter sepjion north and south of Prospect, was to insure that when
development occurred that the Citi bad influence over the Interstate interchange likewise
14 0
-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 condition on H-B zone.
Water and Wastewater: Utility service from the City is not available for this
property at this time.
Light and Power: Requests a 15' utility easement along all roadway frontages,
including both sides of the Frontage Road where it curves around the north side
of Prospect.
Note: The property owner is negotiating with Light and Power for the provision
of this easement under a separate legal instrument.
Zoning: No comments.
Parks: No comments.
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: The property will have minimal impact on police services
until the time of development.
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:
N: FA-1, Farming County zoning, residential subdivision, and C, Commercial
• 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 Urtan 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.
0 15
• 0
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 tic 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 •.eater. 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 arc 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 arterizi 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, offices, 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,
0 17
preparation of food product, pharmaceutical manufacturing, research, scientific laboratics. •
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
is 19
0
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 cast 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.
20 0
r
• 1801 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
October 21, 1990
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members,
We live in Homestead Estates which is a group of 47 one acre or more lots located south of the proposed
Galatia annexation. After moving to the Ft. Collins area a year ago, we spent many months of searching
the Windsor, Loveland and Fort Collins area until we found this neighborhood. We chose it for several
reasons. It had the rural feel and country lifestyle we were seeking, the size of the lots gave us more
privacy and the view of the Front Range is tremendous.
We attended the recent Neighborhood -Developer meeting where the developer of the Galatia project
presented his revised master plan. He has assigned fourteen zones of development but has failed to be
specific regarding density within the zones. Since the property borders residential estate properties
ranging from I to 5 acre single dwelling lots, we feel that the proposed residential zones should be
compatible with the existing acreage. The developer ho-e,,,!y told us that he would like to see high
density development in the residential zones. This would be incompatible with the surrounding acreage
and unacceptable to us. Since this is still a rural area, a special zoning designation for fringe UGA
boundary areas should be considered. We would like to see a maximum of one unit per 3/4 acre.
The revised master plan has three zones with Transitional zoning. This designation could ultimately
allow uses that are even more incompatible with the surrounding property than the originally proposed
Light Industrial. We feel strongly that high density residential is less desirable than well designed Light
Industrial development. In my case, if the development progresses, we would like to see the Galatia
development separated from the existing residential development by ample and aesthetically acceptable
landscaped buffering.
In summary we feel that the current master plan is vague and doesn't provide information on specific
intra-zonal densities. Since this development will border a rural residential lifestyle we feel that this
density issue should be addressed in the proposed master plan which sets the atmosphere and requirements
for future development.
Sincerely,
eR (
ez5tc,1�/ 1_1!�7 11161zt�t
Randall N. Stout
• Edith G. Stout
r
E
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
P O Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Ladies and Gentlemen:
October 19, 1990
RE: Galatia Annexation and Zoning
We are homeowners at 1601 Meadowaire, in Homestead Estates,
just south of the proposed Galatia annexation. We were present at
the September Planning & Zoning meeting and the October 15
neighborhood meeting between the developer, City staff and property
owners. This letter is intended to formally express our specific
concerns as well as suggestions we would like to be considered by
your board at the October 22 meeting.
Through attending meetings and numerous discussions with
planners, Planning & Zoning Board members, City Council and other
homeowners, we have educated ourselves and broadened our
perspective about this proposal. We no longer oppose the
annexation per se, although we continue to be very concerned about
several major issues. Most of this concern results from the
developer's reluctance (unwillingness?) to be more specific in his
proposed zoning, leaving affected property owners with many
unanswered questions and uneasiness about the development that may
occur in this area.
We continue to oppose annexation of the portion of the parcel
which is outside the UGA boundary; though we could live with
development of this section if it were designated with a density of
no more than one unit per 3/4 - 1 acre. The UGA agreement
specifically states that (in areas in the UGA) new residential
development "shall mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent
existing residential development by maintaining the character and
density of existing development along common boundaries." In a
discussion with Mayor Kirkpatrick, she agreed that congruent land
use is an important issue and that it may be appropriate to
consider some creative zoning options in a manner similar to the
Foothills zoning, that would allow for a more transitional land use
in this fringe UGA area.
At the October neighborhood meeting the developer was quite
frank with us in disclosing that if he were to develop this land
(Zones L, M, and N on the Cityscape map), he would seek the highest
density possible. We do not feel a high density zoning is
compatible or even remotely appropriate here.
The areas G, K and J which border the five -acre Kitchell
Estates are now proposed to be zoned transitional which is an •
uncertain way at best to address the concern of IP, industrial park
0
E
0
Page two
adjacent to residences. We would like the developer to consider
designating a large (perhaps 200 - 300 feet) landscaped green belt
area between the IP and these residences to ensure an aesthetic
transition.
We have major concerns about increased traffic and safety
issues such as: adequate streets and ability to provide adequate
police protection to this remote area of the City. A very
substantial irrigation ditch runs close to the north side of
Prospect Street. There are no proposed solutions for avoiding
infringing on existing properties and an unwillingness on the part
of the City staff to even look into possible solutions, when asked.
In fact the ditch companies, Cache La Poudre Irrigation Company and
Lake Canal Ditch Company, were not informed by staff of this
proposal.
At the neighborhood meeting and in others with City staff and
the developer, these problems are being taken lightly as though
this is merely another step in this process toward development
which is probably far in the future, so we can solve these problems
later. However, the zoning will be set now and we feel now is the
most appropriate and effective time to address these concerns. In
Homestead Estates we have the essence of rural living, yet are
still able to enjoy and be a part of the City of Port Collins and
we would like our lifestyle to survive.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Please feel
free to contact us at 484-4990 if you have any questions.
cc:
City Council
Sincerely yours,
Cbaryl J.B. NJJicchols
', /��V A C
Barry . N chols
/' V " _` A Cnnvn II Rl To ('rogre.0
A44AN
LARIMER COUNTY
COLORADO
September 11, 1990
Rirsten A. Whetstone
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Co 80522-0580
Dear Ms. Whetstone:
Board of County Commissioners
221.7010
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
We have reviewed the proposed Galatia Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins and would like to make two comments.
First, the annexation should include all the right of way for County
Road 44 from County Road 5 to Interstate-25. This may be the intent
but it is not ^.ear on the plan submitted if all right of way is
included.
The second point is actually about annexations in general. The
Intergovernmental Agreement certainly allows the City or the County to
administratively extend the Urban Growth Area Boundary to include all
of an ownership that is currently divided by the Boundary. It seems
that the Agreement intenas that a plan for the extension of urban level
services should be in place before piecemeal annexations occur which
prompt the extension of such services, particularly in cases where the
annexation.. expands the city limits beyond the current Urban Growth
Area.
This annexation does not appear to present ary significant negative
impacts on County facilities or services, therefore we recommend
approval of the Galatia Annexation.
Sincerely,
Courtlyn Hotchkiss, Chariman
Board of County Commissioners
cc: file
is
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Counlyn W Hotchkiss M.J.'Moe' Mekelburg Daryle W. Klassen
District I District It District III
221-7001 221 7002 221 7003
-4-
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.
The two 1/4 sections adjacent to I-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 allowing essentially all types of
commercial uses short of industrial uses. Some uses allowed in the C zone
include, automobile sales, automobile repair, builder's supply yards, mobile
home sales, storage warehouses, and farm implement dealers. 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 C zone could allow the development of some uses which may not
be appropriate at a major gateway into the city, in staff's opinion.
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 (64.5 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 28.0 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. The City's Plan also encourages a mixing of residential
densities to allow for a variety of housing opportunities throughout the
community. 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.
The Council has several options in dealing with this annexation:
Annex and zone the property as requested by the applicant. Annexation of
the property would place all future development decisions concerning the
property under the control of the City. Annexation of the property as
requested would also add about 78 acres into the UGA boundary. Zoning
the property with a PUD condition would require all development proposals
to be reviewed under the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM.
No Text
i
F.
�•`
_
1
•r""`_� lti...... 1
."_.:•fit"i»1L..,•L_-_ _ n
19�
—
F r wr
��' • 1 a cai.n A...
Y
qr
1
r_I •s
`� I
I 1
��
-
� I
_ ��1f ..•--
•ram
.:
�� I a..�� �
� �-�• � �� I � �%`mil
_
i
t 1
_
•�
...1. nib ;•.\ '�
���`-� ,(.-�. �:�� ',
1
L ._. Ca l
1988
L CITY OF FORT COLLINS
-,-I-
? SEWEjt MAS&M�PLAN
•• 1__
�,,, T �I E ng 'Qt w�r_Llnss
��� PrQJ1oyN1 Sowm,,! nH
-
��
i
�
LL� � `F�fftlntillalNCi w� Liners
I
I
�� r I
DATE: November 20, 1990 -5- I 'REM NUMBER: 16 a-c
The LOGS process would also allow for the further involvement of adjacent
Iproperty owners and residents as the property develops.
2. Deny the annexation as submitted by the applicant and request future
annexation requests include a specific plan for development which could
be subjected to detailed fiscal analysis. Fiscal analysis based on
proposed zonings, or the general nature of a master plan, is difficult to
accomplish because of the wide variety of possible uses for the area.
3. Deny the annexation as submitted but indicate to the applicant the City
is interested in the annexation of the portion of the property currently
within the UGA boundary and request the annexation petition be amended
accordingly. The applicant desires the entire property be considered for
annexation and intends to develop the property under a unified development
plan. Annexation of the portion of the property within the UGA would
place future development decisions for the areas immediately adjacent to
the I-25 highway and interchange under the control of the City while
leaving the eastern portion under the jurisdiction of the County. Placing
a PUD condition on the zoning of the property would require all
development proposals to be reviewed under the criteria of the LDGS.
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.
2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a
voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
3_ The requested H-B, I-P, and R-P Districts are in conformance with the
policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zonings. Staff
believes 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. Staff also
believes that it is in the City's best interest, from a long range planning
perspective, to gain control over the future development of the property due to
its strategic location at an I-25 interchange, which will become a major gateway
into the community. If the property were to remain in the County, and be
rezoned to the C, Commercial, zoning district, staff believes uses may develop
which may not be appropriate at a major gateway into the city.
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Galatia annexation and zoning
requests at their September 24, and October 22, 1990, monthiy meetings. On
October 22, 1990, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation
and zoning requests. Copies of the Board's minutes from each meeting and all
written materials submitted to the Board are attached.
0
• RESOLUTION 90-165
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE GALATIA ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council
of the City of Fort Collins for property to be known as the Galatia Annexation;
and
WHEREAS, following Notice given as required by law, the Council has held
a hearing on said Annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Council of the City of Fort Collins hereby finds that
the petition for annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 2. That the Council hereby finds that there is at least one -sixth
(1/6) contiguity between the City and the property seeking annexation; that a
community of interest exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the
City; that said property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and
that said property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with
the City.
Section 3. That the Council further determines that the applicable parts
• of said Act have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and
that there are no other terms and conditions to be imposed upon said annexation.
Section 4. That the Council further finds that notice was duly given and
a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act.
Section 5. That the Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed
in the Galatia Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be
so annexed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins held this 20th day of November, A.D. 1990.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
11
or
0
ORDINANCE NO. 131, 1990 •
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
GALATIA ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 90-165, finding substantial compliance and initiating
annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City
of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the Council has found and determined and does hereby find and
determine that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
as follows:
Section 1. That the following described property, to wit:
A tract of land located in Section 15, 14, 22, and 23, Township 7
North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section
15 as bearing North 00°13'00" East from a found nail in bridge deck
at the Southwest corner of said Section 15 to an aluminum cap at the
.
West Quarter corner of said Section 15 and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15; thence along
the South line of said Southwest Quarter, South 89'57'48" East,
1201.96 feet to the point of beginning; thence, North 00°02'12"
East, 30.00 feet to the Easterly right-of-way of Interstate Highway
25; thence along said right-of-way the following eight courses,
North 89°57'48" West, 371.65 feet; thence, North 65°48'30" West,
112.20 feet; thence, South 89°58'00" West, 300.00 feet; thence North
57020'00" West, 106.30 feet; thence North 28°21'00" West, 459.00
feet; thence, North 26°21'00" West, 100.00 feet; thence, North
09°09'00" West, 202.70 feet; thence, North 00°12'36" East, 1845.67
feet to the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15;
thence departing said right-of-way and along said North line, South
89°37'50" East, 2588.49 feet to the Northeast corner of said
Southwest Quarter; thence along the East line of said Southwest
Quarter, South 00°07'44" West, 1331.86 feet to the Northwest corner
of the South half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 15;
thence along the North line of the South half of the Southeast
Quarter of said Section 15 and the Easterly prolongation thereof,
South 89°50'13" East, 2669.32 feet to the East right-of-way of the
County Road 5; thence along said right-of-way, South 00°10'50" West,
1355.87 feet to the South right-of-way of County Road 44; thence
along said South right-of-way, North 89°58'44" West, 2668.01 feet;
thence, North 89°57'48" West, 1453.81 feet; thence departing said
•
• South right-of-way, North 15°37'12" East, 31.14 feet to the point
of beginning, be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins
and made a part of said City, to be known as the Galatia Annexation.
EXCEPT:
That tract of land described at reception number 88059158, recorded
in Larimer County Records.
The above described tract contains 27.993 acres and is subject to
all easements, rights -of -way or restrictions now on record or
existing.
Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not
assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines,
gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities
in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the
ordinances of the City.
Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section
37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal
Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published
this 20th day of November, A.D. 1990, and to be presented for final passage on
the 4th day of December, A.D. 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of December, A.D. 1990.
ATTEST:
ty Cler
Mayor
2
ORDINANCE NO. 132, 1990 •
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES
THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE
GALATIA ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning District Map adopted by Chapter 29 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by
including the property known as the Galatia Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, in the HB Highway Business, IP Industrial Park and RP Planned
Residential Zoning Districts, more particularly described as follows:
HB Zone Description:
A tract of land located in Section 15, and 22, Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado,
being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section
15 as bearing North 00°13'00" East from a found nail in bridge deck •
at the Southwest corner of said Section 15 to a Aluminum Cap at the
West Quarter corner of said Section 15 and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15; thence along
the South line of said Southwest Quarter, South 89°57'48" East,
1201.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 00°02'12"
East, 30.00 feet to the Easterly right-of-way of Interstate Highway
25; thence along said right-of-way the following eight courses,
North 89°57'48" West, 371.65 feet; thence, North 65°48'30" West,
112.20 feet; thence, South 89°58'00" West, 300.00 feet; thence,
North 57°20'00" West, 106.30 feet; thence North 26°21'00" West,
459.00 feet; thence, North 26°21'00" West, 100.00 feet; thence,
North 09°09'00" West 202.70 feet; thence, North 00°12'36" East,
604.00 feet to a point on the centerline described in Book 1531,
Page 759, recorded in Larimer County Records; thence along said
centerline the following five courses, South 54°51'00" East, 932.90
feet; thence, South 67°55'00" East, 94.75 feet; thence South
85°02'00" East, 550.69 feet; thence South 76°22'00" East, 157.24
feet; thence, South 55°01'00" East, 52.51 feet; thence South
09'22'51" West, 791.67 feet to a point on the South right-of-way of
County Road 44, thence along said South right-of-way, North
89°57'48" West, 332.86 feet; thence, North 15°37'12" East, 31.14
feet to the Point of Beginning.
0