HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/14/2008-AdjournedOctober 14, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 14,
2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel Ohlson, Poppaw, and
Roy.
Councilmembers Absent: Troxell
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy.
Resolution 2008-095
Responding to the Town of Timnath's Resolution #19;
Series 2008, Proposing a Program of Cooperation with the
City of Fort Collins Regarding the Riverwalk Project, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 17, 2008, the Timnath Town Board adopted a Resolution proposing cooperation with
Fort Collins regarding a property known as "Riverwalk" and requested a response from Fort
Collins within 30 days. Riverwalk, which is located at the southwest corner of Flarmony and I-25,
lies within Fort Collins' Growth Management Area (GAM) which is identified in an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County. The IGA was established in 1980 and
Riverwalk was incorporated into Fort Collins' GAM at that time. On September 24, Timnath
initiated an annexation of Riverwalk. On October 1, Timnath Council had its first reading of the
annexation ordinance; the second reading is scheduled for October 29.
Fort Collins'staff has prepared Resolution No.095, 2008, as a response to Timnath's September 17
Resolution. The Resolution describes the City's longstanding willingness to cooperate with Timnath
on mutually acceptable development and revenue sharing approaches for Riverwalk and other 1-25
properties of mutual interest and concern. The Resolution also describes the City's unwillingness
to fund various inf •astructure improvements that have been proposed by Timnath and states that the
annexation by Timnath into the approved GAM of the City is not in the spirit of cooperation, but
rather in the spirit of competition.
Due to these, and other undesirable consequences associated with Timnath's annexation into Fort
Collins' GMA, the Resolution states that if Timnath were willing to discontinue its annexation of
Riverwalk, the City would be willing to enter into an IGA with Timnath that establishes 1-25 as the
198
October 14, 2008
boundary between the two communities. The City also would consider the possibility of revenue
sharing between the two communities and various other kinds ofcooperative undertakings. Lastly,
the Resolution states that if Timnath proceeds with its annexation into Fort Collins, funding for
various infrastructure improvements and access associated with Riverwalkwill be the responsibility
of Timnath and/or the owners and developers of the property.
BACKGROUND
Colorado law encourages regional land use planning and IGAs. " Local governments are
authorized and encouraged to cooperate... with other units of government... for the purposes of
planning or regulating the development of land including.... the joint exercise of planning zoning,
subdivision, building and related regulations. Local governments may provide through
intergovernmental agreements for the joint adoption ....of mutually binding and enforceable
comprehensive developmentplans within theirjurisdictions. " (29-20-105) Pursuant to this statute,
Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor and Larimer County have executed IGA's to cooperate in managing
development within their respective jurisdictions. One fundamental principle underlying regional
cooperation is that municipalities do not annex inside each other's GMA's. The Fort Collins-Larimer
County IGA has included the Riverwalk Property since 1980.
Annexation is a statutory process under which properties adjacent to municipalities become part
of those municipalities. The purposes behind annexation, as stated in the statute are:
(a) To encourage natural and well -ordered development of municipalities of the state;
(b) To distribute fairly and equitably the costs of municipal services among those persons who
benefit therefrom;
(c) To extend municipal government, services and facilities to eligible areas which form apart
of the whole community;
(d) To simplify governmental structure in urban areas;
(e) To provide an orderly system for extending municipal regulations to newly annexed areas;
09 To reduce friction among contiguous or neighboring municipalities; and
(g) To increase the ability of municipalities in urban areas to provide their citizens with the
services they require. (31-12-102)
Timnath and Fort Collins do not have an IGA. After extensive discussions and negotiations, Fort
Collins presented a draft IGA to the Timnath Town Board in 2003 that Fort Collins understood was
acceptable to the Timnath. The draft IGA included material regarding annexations, development
referrals, community separators, and cooperative planning areas. Timnath declined to execute that
IGA.
In 2002-03, Timnath participated in the Fort Collins-Timnath-Windsor Separator Study which
identified specific opportunities to achieve mutual goals far visual and geographic separation via
purchase of land or development rights. The Study stated that "there is strong local support for
establishing effective communityseparators... as evidenced by Timnath's update of its comprehensive
plan to both accommodate and reflect community separator opportunities. "
199
October 14, 2008
Key findings and conclusions from the Study led to subsequent implementation efforts by Fort
Collins' Natural Areas Program. Those efforts were based on the following statements in the Study.'
"...meaningful implementation of these community separators will require significant
purchase of properties or development rights by public agencies. "
"Until Timnath and Windsor adopt open space funding mechanisms, Fort Collins and
Larimer County will need to fund most property and development rights acquisitions in the
area. Fort Collins has afar greater interest in implementing the Fort Collins/Timnath
Separator than Larimer County... "
After the Study was completed, Fort Collins worked with several landowners in the community
separator to acquire conservation easements and 105 acres offee ground near the Prospect
intersection. In response to Timnath's concerns about its ability to construct various types of
potential public improvements on one ofthe easements, including expansion of County Road 5 and
flood control improvements, the City included specific language in the easement which would allow
infrastructure projects to proceed The pending draft of the easement was forwarded to the Town
of Timnath with a letter from the Fort Collins' City Manager on March 2, 2005. No response was
received from the Town of Timnath.
Since the time of the Study and Timnath's comprehensive plan of 2003, however, Timnath's vision
for the future has changed. Timnath has dramatically expanded its comprehensive planning area,
even to go so far as to propose incorporating areas of Fort Collins' GMA that have been part of
Fort Collins since 1980. Furthermore, that area, Riverwalk, is now being annexed into Timnath.
In June of 2007, Fort Collins became aware of a proposed revision of Timnath's comprehensive
plan. Fort Collins was not notified of the revision, as required by law. The proposed revision
contained major changes, including expansion of Timnath all the way to County Road 52, far to the
north of any previous comprehensive plan.
After objections by Fort Collins and citizens, in January of this year, the Larimer County
Commissioners tabled consideration of a proposed Timnath-Larimer County Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) to establish a Timnath Growth Management Area (GMA) based on the revised
comprehensive plan. At thatpoint, City staffstarted working with Timnath staffto resolve the issues
raised by the City at the Commissioners' public hearing.
City staff believes the main reason for the Larimer County Commissioners' tabling the proposed
IGA was to allow the City and Town to participate in a joint land use planning effort in order to
come to an agreement as to the appropriate land uses and location of GMA boundaries (for both
Timnath and Fort Collins) primarily for the area north of Mulberry Street, but also for additional
areas located east of 1-25, as well as to explore the potential for establishing boundaries for
cooperative planning areas and/or areas of influence.
The comprehensive planning process was to address the following questions/issues
200
October 14, 2008
1. What is the planning vision for the area?
2. What are the major planning goals?
3. What land uses are envisioned for the area?
4. What are the populationlemployment projections for the area given the planned land uses?
City staff prepared a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the City and Town to
participate in a joint land use planning.
Timnath staff responded with a counter MOU which had the following Scope of Work:
a. Identify transportation and storm drainage issues of mutual concern.
b. Identify possible construction andfunding opportunities to address issues identified
in a.
C. Work to implement the specific recommended actions resulting from this MOU.
Throughout 2008, City and Town staff met to dialogue about these, and other, issues. During this
time, the Citypresented numerous options and ideas for Timnath to consider, including the concept
that each entity would stay on its respective side of I-25. Unfortunately, the Town has either not
been interested in, or has not responded, to these offers. The Town has continued to hold fast to its
expansive, comprehensive plan. Furthermore, unfortunately, the Town has continued to narrow the
scope of the joint meetings. Currently the focus of the meetings is solely on streets within one mile
of I-25.
In addition to staff meetings with Timnath, Fort Collins' Mayor, Doug Hutchinson, and City
Manager, Darin Atteberry, have met on multiple occasions with the Mayor and Town Manager of
Timnath (Donna Benson and Becky Davidson, respectively). Unfortunately, those meetings have
been unproductive, in spite of the fact that Mayor Hutchinson and City Manager Atteberry offered
numerous concessions to the Town. The Mayor and the City Manager have consistently indicated
to Timnath that an annexation by Timnath into the Fort Collins GMA was unacceptable to Fort
Collins.
In summer of 2007, the developer(s) of Riverwalk (the Stoner Team) approached the City about
annexation and development. After discussions with the Stoner Team, and based on what staff
believed were sound planning principles, City staffagreed that a revision ofthe Harmony Corridor
Plan and Design Standards were in order.
Several subsequent meetings were held between City staff and the Stoner Team concerning: details
of the plan amendment and design standards; pre -annexation agreement and conditions;
infrastructure needs; development design; andpotentialfinancing strategies. The Stoner Team and
the Cityjointlyfunded a study of engineeringoptionsfor improving storm drainage across Harmony
Road. Two public open houses were conducted by City staff on the proposed amendments to the
Plan and design standards; the Stoner Team attended and participated in both Open Houses. Staff
presented the amendments to affected boards and commissions. A full day "charette " facilitated by
a localplanning consultantfirm selected andpaidfor by the City, was held between the Stoner Team
and City staff to discuss a variety ofdevelopment issues. The City Council held two work sessions
201
October 14, 2008
related to the property.- the first on the overall vision for the I-25 corridor; and the second,
specifically on the proposed amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan and design standards.
Between November 2007 and April 2008, City staff continued to work on refining the amendments
(with input from the Stoner Team) and had scheduled to move forward with a recommendation of
approval to City Council; the hearing was scheduled forJune, 2008. In addition, staffdevised a new
process for developers to review their project with the City Council in advance of any decision
making by the Councilor the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Thisprocess was then successfully
utilized by a developer pursuing a major King Soopers and retail development on North College
Avenue.) On or about mid -April 2008, however, staff learned that the Stoner Team was no longer
interested in pursuing the plan amendment; subsequently, the Stoner Team terminated further
negotiations with City staff. Shortly thereafter, the City learned that Timnath was in negotiations
with the Stoner team regarding annexation of the property.
After all the good faith dialogue and negotiations related to Timnath's comprehensive plan revision,
the proposed Riverwalk development, and numerous other issues, the City recently learned by
accident (no notice was provided by Timnath) of its proposed annexation of Riverwalk The City
believes that this annexation clearly is not in the best interests ofthe City, Timnath, nor the region.
The City believes that this proposed annexation violates the mostfundamental principles ofregional
planning. Almost all of the property to be annexed is contiguous to Fort Collins, and it serves as
an important gateway to the City.
As noted previously, Riverwalk is located within the Fort Collins GMA boundary, which was
established through an IGA between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County in 1980. The
boundary, for all intents and purposes, represents the future City limits of Fort Collins. There are
a series of policies and specific provisions within the Fort Collins-Larimer County IGA that
essentially require properties to annex into the City prior to their development, or as soon after
development that the requirements of the State's annexation laws can be met. Both the City and the
County have greatly benefitted from their IGA. The annexation of the Stoner property into Timnath
would undermine and destroy almost three decades of intergovernmental cooperation of growth
management and land use planning.
Harmony Road is a crucial gateway into Fort Collins and it is extremely important that the road be
identified, designed, built, and maintained to reflect its importance. The City should control
development standards on what is one of the major gateways into its jurisdiction. Furthermore,
revenues from development are important to support City operations and facilities. Moreover, the
City has expended funds and done a great deal of planning in the area to achieve the overall vision
for the community and the gateway area. A few tangible examples include: the 1991 Harmony
Corridor Plan; 1995 purchase of Natural Areas in the gateway area; participation in the new
interchange in 1999; the City'spark-n-ride; the City taking over responsibilityfor Harmony Road
from the State; jloodplain planning and design in conjunction with different owners over the years;
trail systems throughout the area; and, renaming of streets formerly known as CR7 and CR36.
These investments were not speculative on the City's part. The City relied on the GMA agreement,
geographic ties to Fort Collins, and good faith relationships with all surroundingjurisdictions.
202
October 14, 2008
The state annexation laws are intended not only to provide for the orderly growth of urban
communities but also to reduce friction among contiguous or neighboring communities. Properties
seeking annexation must have one -sixth contiguity to existing municipal boundaries in order to be
eligible for annexation. The purpose of that contiguity requirement is to ensure that a "community
of interest" exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality.
Timnath's annexation ofRiverwalk wouldnotfoster orderly growthpatterns; instead, itwouldlikely
set in motion a patchwork of annexations by competing municipalities on opposite sides of the
Interstate. And, it would certainly not reduce friction between Fort Collins and Timnath. Moreover,
there exists no community interest between Riverwalk and existing Timnath town limits; that
community ofinterests exists between Riverwalkand Fort Collins. Ifthat were not the case, Timnath
would not need to utilize a flagpole annexation in order to reach inside the Fort Collins GMA and
annex the property.
Thus, for these, and other reasons, on October 8 2008, the Cityfiled an objection and request for
mediation pursuant to Section 24-32-3209(w.3)(b) of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It is Fort
Collins' expectation that, as required by this statute, Timnath will take no further action with regard
to this annexation for at least ninety days from October 8 or until completion of the mediation.
While City staff appreciates Timnath's offer to cooperate with Fort Collins, as expressed in the
resolution of September 17, staff believes that the offer is disingenuous. While expressing an offer
of cooperation, at the same time Timnath has expanded its growth area into Fort Collins GMA with
a revised comprehensive plan and pursued an annexation into the City's 28 year -old GAM. Further,
staff has learned that the Town of Timnath has approached other properties in our GAM about
potential annexation. These efforts are antithetical to the concept of cooperation.
Even if the City were willing to support the Riverwalk project in Timnath's town boundaries,.
Timnath's resolution states that Timnath would be willing to "assist in funding the needed
infrastructure. " Yet the developer is not proposing to pay the City's impact fees, which would be
used to support these expenses.
Conclusion
Staff believes that Timnath's offer of cooperation is unacceptable. Timnath's annexation of
Riverwalk violates long-standing agreements andregionalplanning efforts andprinciples. Theoffer
is financially unacceptable to Fort Collins because it proposes to place a major fiscal burden on
Fort Collins for a development located in Timnath.
Staff recommends the attached draft resolution as a counter-offer. The resolution states that:
if[Timnath] is willing to not annex the Property to Timnath, the City Council would
be willing to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Timnath that would
address the regional planning issues referenced above as well as the possibility of
equitable revenue sharing, future Fort Collins community separator acquisitions,
203
October 14, 2008
mutually acceptable GMA boundaries, regional trail collections, and a joint design
review committee.
and, that:
if the Town Board pursues the annexation of the Property, such annexation will
seriouslyjeopardize these joint planning efforts and thefunding ofthe infrastructure
improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of the development and allow access
thereto will be the sole responsibility of the Town of Timnath and/or the owners and
developers of the Property. "
City Manager Atteberry stated lengthy conversations have been held with the Town of Timnath
regarding various issues, including the possible annexation of the Riverwalk or Stoner Property.
Discussions have also been held regarding stormwater issues, capital facilities, regional cooperative
land use planning as it relates to Timnath's growth management boundary proposals, community
separators, and other issues. The resolution before Council is a counteroffer to the Town of Timnath,
which adopted a resolution on September 17 that offered the City 20% revenue sharing, joint
standards and joint committees. After careful consideration, staff does not find Timnath's offer
acceptable because the offer continues to contemplate the annexation of the Riverwalk Property into
the Town of Timnath. This annexation undermines over 25 years of regional planning that involved
thousands of hours of citizen participation, multiple Councils, Planning Directors, staff and City
Managers. Conversations with Timnath need to continue to attempt to resolve other issues.
Mayor Hutchinson noted a special meeting was held earlier in the day and Council took action to
prevent this annexation. A special meeting was required because second reading of Timnath's
ordinance authorizing the annexation is scheduled to be held on October 29, 2008. The City met all
standards for notification to call a special meeting.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2008-095.
Councilmember Manvel stated Timnath's move to annex property in Fort Collins' GMA is not
acceptable. The proposed Resolution states that the City is willing to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with Timnath that would address the regional planning issues, if the Town Board of
Timnath is willing to stop the annexation of the Riverwalk Property. Fort Collins is absolutely
opposed to Timnath moving forward with the annexation.
Councilmember Roy stated the special meeting was not a secret meeting, as reported in the
newspaper. The special meeting was held in accordance with all requirements of the Code.
Mayor Hutchinson noted a compromise is still possible with the Town of Timnath and he was
hopeful further conversations could continue. It is in the best interests of the City to retain the
Riverwalk Property within the City's GMA. The City has been a good steward of the area for many
years with the idea of the area as a gateway into Fort Collins. The City has invested in the Park -and -
Ride Transit Center and in the interchange itself.
204
October 14, 2008
Jay Stoner, 605 South College Avenue, developer of the Riverwalk Property, stated the current
actions are combative and detrimental to regional cooperation. Postponing annexation and entering
into mediation can be productive, as long as all parties have the same objective of improving
Northern Colorado.
Rebecca Davidson, Timnath Town Manager, stated the Town of Timnath was willing to enter into
mediation and she believed there was the misunderstanding about the resolution offered by the Town
of Timnath.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
Adjournme�•
205