Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/15/2005 - RESOLUTION 2005-028 AMENDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ITEM NUMBER: 30 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 15, 2005 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waido SUBJECT Resolution 2005-028 Amending the Growth Management Area (GMA) Boundary to Include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the boundary amendment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to amend the Fort Collins Growth Management Area(GMA) boundary to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), an area of approximately 2.25 square miles. The CPA was identified as a location for a possible amendment to the GMA boundary in the recently adopted update to City Plan(May 2004) and City Structure Plan map. If approved by the City Council,the boundary amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County for approval as amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins GMA. BACKGROUND City Plan Policy GM-1.2 indicates that GMA boundary amendments will only be considered in conjunction with comprehensive updates to City Plan. In the update just completed,three potential GMA boundary amendments (the Fossil Creek CPA,the Wildflower Area, and the CSU Foothills Campus) are to be considered by the City prior to the next update. This is a request to amend the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA)boundary to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), an area of approximately 2 andl/4 square miles. Fossil Creek CPA History In March 1998,the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County concluded a joint planning effort with the adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Plan was adopted as an element of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan contained the following chapters/topics: 1. land use framework 2. transportation 3. natural areas and open lands 4. parks schools, and other community facilities 5. implementation March 15, 2005 -2- Item No. 30 Regarding the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, the Plan's implementation called for two significant actions: (1) amendment of the GMA boundary to include all land north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west of I-25, and(2) establishment of the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) as a future GMA boundary amendment area. The GMA boundary amendment to include all land north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west of I-25 was approved by both the City and County in 1999 and contained approximately 5 square miles,not counting the area covered by Fossil Creek Reservoir. An additional 2.5 square miles was included in the CPA. The.objective of the CPA was to preserve opportunities to expand the supply of buildable land for urban purposes within the city through eventual annexation. In 1999, a series of Intergovernmental Agreements involving the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Windsor, and Larimer County formally extended the GMA boundary to include the area north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west of I-25 and established the CPA. Some key components to these agreements were the establishment of future annexation areas. Fort Collins agreed not to annex east of I-25,Windsor agreed not to annex west of I-25,and Loveland agreed not to annex north of County Road 30. All parties agreed to recognize the Fossil Creek CPA as being a logical extension of the Fort Collins GMA boundary and leading to eventual annexation of the area into Fort Collins. Since the establishment of the IGAs between the City, the surrounding communities, and Larimer County, there has been increased development pressure on the properties adjacent to the I-25/SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange. Also, staff understands that the South Fort Collins Sanitation District may eventually sell for development a 160 acre parcel directly south of their wastewater treatment plant on the south side of Carpenter Road. The area south of Carpenter Road is located in the County's AP, Airport Zoning District. This district could allow uses which would be incompatible with the Community Separator designation on the Structure Plan. North of Carpenter Road, adjacent to I-25, County zoning is a mix of zones, including the C,Commercial and T,Tourist zones,and the RI,Residential district.The area is,thus, primed for development. No formal applications have been made, but both the City and County planning staffs believe that it is a matter of just a short time before someone submits a development application to the County. This adds a sense of urgency to expanding the GMA and annexing the area if the City of Fort Collins wants to have more control over these development plans along a major entry corridor into the city. GMA Amendment Criteria Policy GM-1.2 of City Plan also establishes a set of criteria to be considered in reviewing proposed GMA amendments. These criteria are presented below along with a staff analysis addressing each criterion. The proposed amendment is consistent with community goals, principles, and policies as expressed in City Plan. The initial version of City Plan(1997) contained the policy basis for establishing CPAs. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan's Policy FC-1-6 established the concept for this CPA as an area beyond the GMA which could conceivably be annexed into Fort Collins.One key principle for the CPA was to avoid "annexation wars" between Fort Collins and the other surrounding communities. Staff March 15, 2005 -3- Item No. 30 believes adding the Fossil Creek CPA into the GMA boundary would complete the fulfillment of policies and intergovernmental agreements initiated in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The CPA is designated for a mix of commercial, rural lands, public open lands, and community separators on the City's Structure Plan. Inclusion of the area in the GMA and its eventual annexation will provide the City with much greater assurance that City Plan's vision for the area is successful. The proposed amendment has a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. Staff is convinced that it is just a matter time before commercial development occurs adjacent to the 1-25/SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange. Since development will likely be "urban" in nature, Larimer County staff has indicated they would like the area to develop inside of a city's jurisdiction. Therefore, staff believes the main issue becomes not one of"if' development occurs, but one of "when, where, and how" such development takes place, either in Fort Collins, or in Windsor or Loveland. Amending the GMA boundary to include the CPA at this time would solidify the City's claim to and control of the area as initially established in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and subsequent intergovernmental agreements. The Structure Plan's land use designations for the Fossil Creek CPA include approximately 40 acres of Employment District and approximately 90 acres of Commercial Corridor District adjacent to I- 25. These areas would be zoned E,Employment,and C,Commercial,respectively upon annexation into the City. The balance of the area contains City and County open space/parks and a portion of the Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator. The privately-owned properties in the separator would be placed into the RR District upon annexation. The publicly owned properties would be placed into the POL, Public Open Lands District upon annexation. Annexation of this area into the City would allow the City to apply its street standards, including right-of-way dedications, as well as collecting the full range of City impact fees. Staff does not have exact figures, but intuitively would expect the approximately 40 acres of Employment District and approximately 90 acres of Commercial Corridor District to generate impact fees and tax revenues to more than adequately cover the costs of necessary public services and facilities to those employment and commercial uses and the very low density residential development that is likely to happen in the CPA. Included in the City services to be provided to the area after annexation are police and road maintenance services. Water and wastewater utilities will be provided by the Loveland-Fort Collins Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District respectively. The Police Department has a standard that indicates 400 housing units generate the need for an additional police officer. Assuming all of the parcels designated as Rural Lands and Community Separator available for residential development in the CPA develop as residential clusters with a density of 1 unit per 2.29 acres,the area would produce about 160 units, or about the need for .4 of a police officer. Certain commercial uses, such as bars, create a higher demand for police services than other commercial uses. While the future commercial and employment uses will add to the need for additional police services, staff finds they would not be of the types that would create the high demands for those services. Therefore, staff concludes the CPA GMA boundary amendment would have a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. March 15, 2005 -4- Item No. 30 The proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate an activity that cannot be reasonably accommodated on lands within the existing GMA boundary. There are five entry corridors into Fort Collins from I-25. From north to south they are: Mountain Vista Drive, Mulberry Street, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and Carpenter Road. The Structure Plan designates three of them for commercial development:Mulberry,Prospect,and Carpenter. One is almost fully developed(Mulberry),leaving two(Prospect and Carpenter)remaining available for future commercial development. The I-25 Subarea Plan, an element of City Plan, identifies the Prospect interchange as an"activity center"which will be encouraged to develop with a mix of uses, including residential. While Prospect will also likely be the location for some highway oriented commercial development, outside of Mulberry,the community does not have an area that can offer location attributes to serve the regional retail market and traveling public on I-25. Thus, staff recommends the CPA area should be added to the GMA to provide for certain types of commercial uses that cannot be accommodate, nor perhaps should not be accommodated, in other parts of the GMA. The land proposed for inclusion in the GMA contains environmental resources or hazard constraints that make it unsuitable for its proposed use. The properties immediately surrounding Fossil Creek Reservoir are a very important environmental resource for the community. Maintaining a separation of the Fort Collins and Loveland urban areas is also a very high priority of the two communities and the County. The City and County have acquired,or otherwise preserved,a significant portion of the open space and natural areas within the CPA. Additional public purchases/preservations are likely in the future. There are also some important wetlands that will remain privately owned,for example,on the west end of the horse farm property on the southwest corner of the I-25 interchange. One reason for amending the GMA boundary for the CPA is to set the stage for eventual annexation of property into Fort Collins. This would allow the City to apply to the remaining privately owned properties its specific environmental protection development regulations contained in the Land Use Code. Development will eventually happen in the CPA. Applying City regulations will protect the natural environment. There are no specific environmental or hazard constraints that would prohibit development of the area. The proposed amendment would result in a logical change to the GMA. Factors to be included in making this determination will include, but not be limited to, the following: The proposed amendment would allow for the logical,incremental extension of urban services. Water service is available throughout the CPA from the Loveland-Fort Collins Water District, and sanitary sewer service is available from the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. In fact, the sanitation district's wastewater treatment plant is located within the CPA adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. The current I-25/SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange has serious capacity problems;staff is not sure how the lack of capacity at the interchange would affect the County's review of future development proposals in and around the interchange. This is a significant issue for Windsor,which has annexed March 15, 2005 -5- Item No. 30 all properties located east of the interchange and has permitted commercial development in the area. The updates to City Plan and the Master Transportation Plan contain Policy T-1.9 that indicates that the City of Fort Collins will encourage partnerships among CDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, and private interests to improve existing interchanges (the policy does not commit the City to financially participate). Windsor is aggressively exploring ways to convince the North Front Range MPO and the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOT) to elevate the "Windsor interchange" in capital improvement program rankings for funding. CDOT is also exploring with the City and County the transfer of Carpenter Road as a Regionally Significant Corridor to the State system which may help elevate the State and regionally priority of needed improvements to both the roadway and the interchange. Carpenter Road is designated as a future 6-lane arterial on the City's Master Street Plan, but is built to 2-lane County road standards. If annexed, development along Carpenter Road will be required dedicate additional right-of-way,improve the street,and pay impact fees for additional widening. The proposed amendment would offer a desirable new "edge" to the community. As anticipated in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan's implementation strategies, extending the GMA to include the CPA would create a desirable edge to the community. The existing boundary to be extended is contiguous to existing developed areas of the City of Fort Collins. The proposed amendment would contribute to the compact urban form of the city. The Fossil Creek CPA is contiguous to existing development in the city limits,according to Section 3.7.2 Contiguity of the City's Land Use Code. According to Section 3.7.2, contiguity to existing development is not affected by publicly owned open space or a lake/reservoir. The CPA is thus adjacent to developments, such as Westchase, located north of Fossil Creek Reservoir. IGA Amendments In 1980,the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). The agreement established a united, cooperative planning effort towards development goals and policies for the effective management of development in the Fort Collins urban area. The last time the IGA was amended occurred in November 2000. As a result of the proposed GMA boundary amendment the following change to the agreement need to be made. I. The proposed boundary amendment will require updating the map (Exhibit 1 in the IGA) showing the new GMA boundary as per the Fossil Creek CPA amendment. In order to become an official amendment to the IGA the boundary change must be approved by both the City Council and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION Regarding the potential GMA Boundary amendment, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusion: March 15, 2005 -6- Item No. 30 A. The Fossil Creek CPA GMA boundary amendment is needed in order for the City to comply with the policies and expectations set out in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and intergovernmental agreements with Loveland, Windsor, and the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary amendment. If approved by the City Council, the boundary amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners of Latimer County for approval as amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins GMA. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION At its regular monthly meeting on June 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Fossil Creek CPA GMA boundary amendment. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. During public input at the June 17 meeting, two property owners within the Fossil Creek CPA indicated their properties were divided by the GMA boundary as proposed by staff. In one case(the Van Cleave property), the proposed GMA boundary divided the ownership into a 35+ acre (in) portion and a 5 acre(out)portion;while in the other case(the Lemaster,Wortley,Skogan property), the proposed GMA boundary divided the ownership into a 40 acre(in)portion and an 80 acre(out) portion. It was not the intent of the staffs proposed GMA boundary to divide properties under single ownership. The Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation is to include the 5 acres, along with the balance of 35+acres, of the Van Cleave property within the GMA boundary and to exclude the 40 acres,along with the balance of 80 acres,of the Lemaster,Wortley, Skogan property from the GMA boundary amendment. Staff supports the Board's recommendation. Property Owner Opposition The property owners within the Fossil Creek CPA appear entrenched in their position that they do not want to be included in the GMA and eventually annexed into Fort Collins. These property- owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction,with Loveland or Windsor being the obvious options. Staff has learned that some owners,even as recent as last month,contacted Loveland regarding potential annexation and they have approached Latimer County to see what the County's position would be about such annexation in relationship to the IGA which indicates the Fossil Creek CPA should be annexed into Fort Collins. We also know that Loveland and Windsor are interested,but at this point, have been willing to honor the intergovernmental agreement, at least while it is still in effect. From the landowner's perspective,annexation into Fort Collins would provide them no benefits and would only make development of their properties more difficult. Their opposition is based on the following issues and concerns: • City Land Use Code Natural Area/Wet Land Set Back Requirements March 15, 2005 -7- Item No. 30 The owners believe the City's LUC requirements are unreasonable, especially regarding some wet lands that were caused by inadequate drainage systems that were put in place when roads were constructed(i.e.,culverts were installed that were too small to allow water pass through eventually leading to back ups that created a "wet land") versus natural wet lands that are part of a stream corridor. There is also the belief that the ability to propose modifications to City standards is too limited and/or the mitigation requirements are too strict and expensive. The owners were told the City's Natural Resources Department was going to investigate and analyze wet lands to see if certain differentiations were warranted and possibly make changes to the standards within the LUC. However, the project is not on an immediate work plan for the Department. The property-owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction. • City's policy not to financially participate in needed I-25 interchange improvements The Carpenter Road and State Highway 392 interchange on I-25 needs to be upgraded. Without a new interchange, further development at the intersection is severely limited if not outright prohibited. The City's policy not to participate financially in any interstate interchange improvement is of concern to the owners, but perhaps of greater concern is the City's possible opposition to the establishment of other potential funding mechanisms, such as a special improvement or metro districts, the use of tax increment financing, etc. The property-owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction. • Fear that annexation would not be a step toward development but a step towards delaying development Again,the property-owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction. The owners fear that annexation into Fort Collins would only place their properties under what they perceive as the City's "no growth"philosophy. • Questions on the timing and the need to complete the amendment in the immediate future The owners are concerned about the timing of the amendment and the apparent City rush to complete it before the April 2005 election. The owners want more time to discuss their issues and concerns. Of course, the requested delay could be a ruse to allow the owners to have more time to work with other jurisdictions about annexation and convince Larimer County to abandon the IGA requirement for annexation into Fort Collins. March 15, 2005 -8- Item No. 30 Latimer Countv's Position Based on a joint study session City staff conducted with the Larimer County Planning Commission and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, the County has some questions and issues regarding the GMA boundary expansion. There is support for the eventual annexation into Fort Collins of the properties immediately adjacent to the I-25 interchange since that is the area most likely to be urbanized with higher intensity commercial uses and need urban services. The balance of the CPA is designated as Rural Development on the Structure Plan and is part of the Fort Collins-Loveland community separator. The County strongly questioned the need to amend the GMA boundary to include these rural areas. The County asked why the City believes it can do a better job with rural development and protecting the open space corridor and community separator than the County. It must be noted that the GMA boundary amendment is not something the City can do unilaterally as the Larimer County must also approve the amendment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map showing the location of the potential Fossil Creek CPA GMA Boundary Amendment. 2. Minutes of the June 17, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 3. Letters expressing opposition to the GMA boundary amendments: a. August 17, 2004, letter from Michael DiTullio, Manager of the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. b. August 13, 2004, letter from Jeff Couch, PE, on behalf of seven property owners in the potential Fossil Creek GMA boundary expansion area. 4. August 11, 2004, letter from David Gordon, Airport Director, Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport expressing concern regarding residential development inside the airport's critical zones. ATTACHMENT S N f � a Y INTERSTATE 2S M+.w h Ln r�, drdL Y h11 o 20 y O 10 64 9 p W 5 7 U CJ o I -- a avoa;uNnoo s •--• ---^,- - :-5 COUNTY ROAD 1 11 e t e Set � D � 1 e ATTACHMENT 2 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 2 Attorney Eckman stated that Item #5 should not be heard per state statute. Director Gloss stated that Item #5 would be continued to the July 15, 2004 agenda. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1, less the May 20, 2004 minutes, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson Torgerson noted that Item #7 was incorrectly advertised to be a recommendation to City Council — the Planning and Zoning Board is in fact the final authority on the item. Project: Wildflower and Fossil Creek CPA GMA Amendment Project Description: Wildflower: Request to add approximately 160 acres into the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA, setting the stage for eventual annexation of the area into the City of Fort Collins. Fossil Creek CPA: Request to add approximately 2 and '/< square miles into the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA, setting the stage for eventual annexation of the area into the City of Fort Collins. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ken Waido, City Planner with the Advance Planning Department, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. Planner Waido stated that, in addition to the proposed GMA expansions, there is also a proposal for a new zoning district called the Rural Lands District and also several changes to the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. He stated that the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area is located in the extreme southeast portion of the community, bounded on the east by 1-25 and bisected by Carpenter Road. The Wildflower area is on the western edge of the GMA and is bounded on the west by Taft Hill Road and is bisected by Trilby Road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 3 Planner Waido gave some history of the Fossil Creek CPA and stated that it was formally recognized as a future expansion area for the GMA in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Planner Waido stated that the Wildflower area became enclaved by City limits in November 2001 when the City annexed the Coyote Ridge Natural Area. It will be part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in early 2005. He noted that state statute requires enclaves to be annexed in their entirety or not at all. Mr. Waido stated that, in the recent update to City Plan, a policy called for boundary amendments to be evaluated against a series of criteria to be applied to the potential boundary changes identified in the update. The first is the consistency with the goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. Staff feels that both of these potential expansions will be consistent with this. As the City policy is to not annex outside the GMA and has agreed with Larimer County to consider annexing enclaved areas, this makes sense for the Wildflower area. In regards to the Fossil Creek CPA, the GMA expansion will help to execute the policies in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Subarea Plan. He stated that another consideration is whether or not these areas will provide a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. It has been determined that the Wildflower area will probably not have a positive net fiscal benefit but the Fossil Creek CPA likely will have a positive net fiscal benefit. Police protection and street maintenance would need to be added to the area when it does annex. There are no environmental constraints or hazards in the Wildflower and are some environmental resources adjacent to the reservoir in the Fossil Creek area. There are no hazardous areas here, however. Planner Waido stated that the new Rural Lands Zoning District would be applied to areas designated as rural lands in community separators that are on the Structure Plan map. This is essentially a residential district with a 10-acre minimum lot size but there is an incentive to cluster residential units— density would increase to one unit per 2.29 acres but 80% of the balance of the property would have to remain as open space. The RUL zone would be applied to areas that are in the Structure Plan as rural lands, basically to the west of 1-25, along the northern edge of Fossil Creek Reservoir, and south of Carpenter Road as well as a few other areas near Taft Hill Road in the Wildflower area. The third component of this item involves changes to the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County dealing with annexation agreements — staff is recommending that specific references to directions by streets and roads be deleted and that more general text be added. The second IGA change would Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 4 deal with the Larimer County Land Use Code and a certain provision that would become moot if this expansion is approved. Staff is recommending approval of the Fossil Creek CPA GMA and Wildflower GMA boundary amendments, adoption of the new Rural Land Use District, and adoption of the minor changes to the City/County IGA. Public Input Jeff Couch, Team Engineering, 3468 Shallow Pond Drive, spoke on behalf of Mary & Terry Van Cleave who are owners of a parcel in the affected area. He requested that the Van Cleave parcel be excluded from the GMA expansion. He noted that there is a 5- acre piece that, for some reason, is not included in the expansion area and stated that it would be difficult to deal with. He added that the Van Cleaves do not depend on the City of Fort Collins for any service and will not depend on it in the future. The County zoning allows the property to do anything that would support the airport function allowing a wide variety of uses. The property is part of both the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The access for the property will come off a county road which will eventually connect to Carpenter Road which is in the process of becoming a state road. , Mr. Couch added that the Van Cleaves have an approved sketch plan for a mixed commercial-industrial use in which wetland, groundwater, and wildlife issues are identified and dealt with. He also noted that the Windsor/I-25 interchange has not been offered any assistance for development from the City of Fort Collins. He stated that the best, most common-sense thing for this property, give prior agreements, would be to remain in the County or annex to the City of Windsor as their goals for the property are to convert it to a commercial/industrial use rather than protect it for open space as the City of Fort Collins would like. Member Schmidt asked if the wetland and wildlife regulations were met to City or just County regulations. Mr. Couch replied that the identification of wetlands is fairly consistent between the City and the County. He clarified for Member Schmidt that there are 5 acres of the total 40 acre piece that are not included in the GMA expansion area. He added that it is difficult for developers to deal with Fort Collins and its "no growth" attitude. Roberta LeMaster, 4100 E. County Road 30, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that this proposal will also divide her land into two parcels and asked that the Board exclude her property from the GMA expansion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 5 Danny Hersch, 7798 S. County Road 11, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he would also like to be excluded from the GMA expansion and that all of his 60 acres would be a part of the proposed expansion. Kim Hersch, 7798 S. County Road 11, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she and her husband had gone through an intense process to get approval for their shed and added that they did not want another obstacle for future plans for their property. Harris Jensen, 1731 W. Trilby Road, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he owns 7 acres in the middle of the Wildflower area and that they would like to stay in the County. He added that they are not using City services except for City water and wondered why the City would want to annex the Wildflower area. JoAnn Wartman spoke on behalf of Alan Ohms, 1665 W. Trilby. She stated that the property is in the Wildflower area and added that they are fundamentally against this annexation and want to live a rural lifestyle. She felt that annexation will devalue the property. However, if the property is to be annexed, she is against the RUL zoning because it is even more restrictive than the Residential Foothills district and would prefer Urban Estate zoning if they are to be annexed so they would have more flexibility to develop. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked about the Van Cleave property and why it was divided. Planner Waido replied that it is clearly not the City's intent to split property ownership boundaries but this seemed to be the most appropriate boundary line. He added that staff would be comfortable recommending a deletion of these 40 acres north of the '/z section line. However, it is important that the employment area stay within the GMA and it would be staffs recommendation to include the 5 acres of employment that is currently not in the boundary. Pete Wray, City Planner with the Advance Planning Department, stated that the line halfway through Carpenter Road and CR 30 is consistent with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the CPA boundary. Chairperson Torgerson clarified that the recommendation is that the LeMaster property be excluded from the GMA change but that the Van Cleave property stay in, in it's entirety. He asked Planner Waido to answer Mr. Jensen's question about why the Wildflower area is included in this proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 6 Planner Waido replied that the City's policy is not to annex outside the GMA boundary and the City has an agreement with Larimer County that we will consider enclave annexations. In January, if the boundary wasn't changed, the City would need to make a decision about not annexing outside the GMA. This "housekeeping" change will allow consistency with City policy and be true to the agreement with Larimer County. Planner Waido added that the new zone district came about after it was decided that making changes to the UE zone would not necessarily be appropriate. The minimum lot sizes were selected so as to remain sensitive to the fact that these are rural areas. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the RUL zone district would be much more consistent with the area's current County zoning than would UE zoning. Member Schmidt asked what the limits of the current County zoning are. Planner Waido replied that most of the Wildflower area is FA1 — Farming which allows 2.29 acre lots. Some of the Fossil Creek area is FA1 and some is Airport zoning —this is the area south of Carpenter Road. Airport zoning is pretty wide open in terms of its allowed uses. Member Schmidt asked if anything in Mr. Couch's proposal for the Van Cleave property would not be allowed in the proposed City zoning. Planner Waido replied that our Employment zone is more restrictive than the Airport zone. Pete Wray, Advance Planning, stated that staff had not heard any specifics about a detailed development project. The Employment zone would allow primary uses such as office parks as well as secondary uses including limited residential, convenience shopping centers, etc. The airport zoning allows a range of commercial uses. Member Schmidt asked if the City was going to annex all the pieces and if that would imply any changes for the current uses of the land. Planner Waido replied that whether they were annexed or not, they would be able to continue their current operation. Any change to the property that needed to be submitted to the County for development review would trigger the annexation requirement under the IGA. If there was contiguity at that time, the property would be required to annex. City staff is talking with the County about annexing the park that is north of CR 32. Member Schmidt asked why the GMA expansion did not go all the way down to CR30. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 7 Planner Waido replied that staff tried to stay true to the original boundary that was drawn in the CPA as part of the Fossil Creek Area Plan and CR 30 is the north edge of Loveland's GMA so it seemed to be more in cooperation with an open space corridor to not have the growth management boundaries meet. The area between is designated separator land. Member Lingle stated that the City Council has recently reaffirmed their decision not to expand the GMA and asked if this recommendation would be consistent with or contrary to that decision. Planner Waido replied that the policy that was adopted as part of the City Plan update says that GMA boundary amendments will only be considered as part of comprehensive updates to City Plan. There is not a policy that says the GMA that you see is what you get. The policy goes on to say that three areas have been identified in the 2004 comprehensive update to City Plan as potential GMA boundary changes —the CSU Foothills Campus, the Wildflower area, and Fossil Creek CPA. Member Lingle asked about the allowed uses in the RUL zone which include agricultural activities as well as accessory miscellaneous uses that include farm animals. He asked if that would also be allowable on a 2.29 acre lot in a cluster development. Planner Waido replied that the County health regulations govern density of animals. Horses require %2 acre per horse so a 2.29 acre lot can have horses depending on the amount of pasture on that lot. Member Lingle asked about the 1-25 interchange and about the fact that if this is adopted, Fort Collins would control the development on half that interchange. He asked if there had been any discussion on the City being an active participant on any improvements. Planner Waido replied that there is a specific policy in City Plan and in the Master Transportation Plan that says the City will not participate financially in interchange improvements. It would either need to be a state capital project or a combination of state money and private development interests. Member Schmidt noted that the County does not have any money to contribute to interchange improvements either. She asked why the City annexed the Coyote Ridge natural area in the Wildflower area but did not extend the GMA. Planner Waido replied that the Wildflower area is part of the larger Southwest enclave annexation area. When the City annexed the Coyote Ridge and Cathy Fromme Prairie Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 8 areas, the enclave was created. The GMA could potentially be expanded to include those areas but it seemed more publicly acceptable to just annex it. Member Schmidt asked if the Southwest enclave area would still be an enclave without the Wildflower area. Planner Waido replied that the GMA boundary expansion does not make the enclave, it was made with the annexations in 2001. If the City wants to annex the enclave, it does have to annex the entire thing. Planning Director Gloss stated that the first neighborhood meeting on the Southwest Enclave Annexation project was held last week and noted that there will be 6 more meetings through the end of August. Member Schmidt asked if all the CPA would be gone with this GMA expansion. Planner Waido replied that the only CPA ever established was the one in Fossil Creek. The original City Plan had a map that showed the concept of a CPA being an area outside the GMA. There was never any discussion about pursuing a CPA elsewhere. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the RUL zoning shown along 1-25 is consistent with the 1-25 Corridor Plan which sets residential uses back from the Interstate. Planner Waido replied that the zoning is consisted with the land use designations that are in the Fossil Creek Sub-area Plan. Planner Wray replied that the area just west of the Interstate has FA-1 zoning in the County so City staff wanted to acknowledge that rural pattern and not use one of the more urban zoning designations for that section. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the residential zoning near the Interstate conflicts with the 1-25 plan to move it back from the Interstate. Planner Waido replied that in the northern portion of the Corridor, when rezoning properties, we made sure we did not have any residential zoning within '/4 mile of the Interstate. It is one thing that may need to be examined in terms of adding the '/4 mile setback into the RUL zone. It would seem that most people would opt for the cluster option in this zone district because they will basically get a fivefold the density. Strategic placement of these clusters would likely place them more than '/4 mile away from the Interstate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 9 Chairperson Torgerson stated that this still does allow for the eventuality of housing along the Interstate, although there may be market discouragements for doing so. Planner Waido stated that they would be able to develop residential within % mile of the Interstate as the Code is currently written. Member Gavaldon stated that the '/< mile buffer was important and stated concern about this issue. Planning Director Gloss stated that staff had anticipated this may be a problem in the future and noted that when the 1-25 Design Standards were adopted, they included a standard that all residential uses be set back '/, mile from 1-25 so there is already a binding regulation that would move any units back from the Interstate. Chairperson Torgerson asked if there were any parcels in the affected area that are within '/< mile of 1-25 that are not large enough to be outside of that because those properties would then be subject to a taking, or something that would resemble it. Planner Wray replied that there are a handful of parcels that would fall into those criteria, perhaps 3 or 4. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the only allowed use is residential and residential is not allowed within '/< mile, if a taking would result. Planner Waido replied that residential is not the only allowed use —churches and golf courses and other uses are allowed. He deferred to Attorney Eckman on whether or not that constitutes a taking. Planner Wray stated that the intent of the Fossil Creek plan, started in 1997, was to not change the County zoning in this area. From 1997 until now, we have not had a zoning classification in place to describe the County zoning. The properties within FA-1 have been put into Transition zoning in the City. Chairperson Torgerson stated that though it was consistent with the Fossil Creek Sub Area Plan, it seems like the goal of keeping the zoning consistent with County zoning is less important than some of the things we've learned since, such as Waterglen. Member Lingle asked if anything was being done with this proposal to the land within the current GMA or if we were just dealing with the expansion of the GMA. Planner Waido replied that the recommendation for zoning would be based on the Structure Plan which has been adopted as part of the City Plan update. The items in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 10 front of the Board tonight are to recommend or not recommend expansion of the GMA boundary and recommend or not recommend the establishment of an RUL zoning district to be applied to rural lands and community separator properties on the structure plan. Planner Wray stated that the RUL zoning does include areas to the north, it is not just within the GMA expansion areas. That would be applied as the areas are annexed, in accordance with the Structure Plan, unless the Structure Plan is amended with the annexation for different land uses. Member Schmidt asked how people go about requesting a change in zoning for their property. Planner Waido replied that recommended zonings, per the Structure Plan, will be applied to all areas within the Southwest Enclave Annexation area. The City accepts rezoning petitions twice a year. In the case where the rezoning requires an amendment to the Structure Plan, that can be done concurrently. Member Schmidt asked if that can be done parcel by parcel or if it had to be done in larger regions. Planner Waido replied that it can be done parcel by parcel but it may be easier to justify an entire neighborhood change rather than an individual lot. Chairperson Torgerson asked, if the Van Cleave property were to be excluded from this amendment, would they be able to develop in the County given the adequate public facilities issues at the intersection. Mr. Couch replied that any development would have to justify that there is enough capacity at the interchange or that they could create enough capacity to proceed. The first couple uses would include those that would not create enough traffic to exceed that capacity. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the Board was, in addition to recommending that the RUL zone be adopted, recommending that it be put in these specific locations. Planner Waido replied that that would be a later decision but it is clearly the intent to apply the RUL zoning to properties identified as rural lands or community separators in the Structure Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 11 Member Lingle asked about the property at the southwest corner of the proposed Fossil Creek GMA expansion (the Hirsch property) and if they annex their property, would their uses come in as legally non-conforming uses. Planner Waido replied that they become existing limited permitted uses —they would not be denied the current use of the property. Planning Director Gloss stated that there are some rules about their expansion potential by right. Chairperson Torgerson clarified that this property could never be annexed against their will given that we could not make it an enclave given this GMA. The Hirsch property could only be annexed if they want to. Member Gavaldon stated agreement with Chairperson Torgerson regarding the RUL zones along 1-25 and stated that he would like City Council to know that this was a concern and that portion is not supported. He stated concern about a possible takings issue. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the GMA Boundary Amendments for the Fossil Creek CPA and Wildflower areas, creation of the RUL zone district and amendments to the City of Fort CollinslLarimer County IGA citing the facts and findings of the staff report. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Chairperson Torgerson asked if Member Gavaldon had included in his motion his objection to the RUL zoning in that particular area. Member Gavaldon added to his motion that the RUL zone not be allowed on the properties along 1-25 and the exclusion of the LeMaster property and inclusion of the entire Van Cleave property with respect to the GMA expansion. Member Carpenter asked if the Board could formally recommend not using the RUL zone district along 1-25. Member Schmidt asked if the Wildflower GMA Amendment could be done at the time of annexation. Planner Waido replied that that could be done. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 12 Member Schmidt stated that she does not really support that GMA Boundary Amendment but if there is a State law stating that it would have to be done at annexation anyway; it may become a moot point. Planner Waido replied that the reason it is coming forth now is because there is a series of four public meetings that need to be held regarding this boundary change. It would be helpful to have all those completed by January so when City Council considers the annexation, the decision on the boundary change has been made already. Chairperson Torgerson clarified that the City is not required to annex any of this area by State law but rather required to do so by the IGA with Larimer County. Deputy Attomey Eckman stated that the State law allows us to annex enclaves after they have been enclaves for 3 or more years; it does not require us to annex enclaves. The court interpretations of the law have led to the conclusion that if you are going to annex part of an enclave, you have to annex all of it. Member Lingle offered a friendly amendment to specifically recommend that the RUL zone not be applied to the 1-25 area even though it is in conflict with the Structure Plan. Member Gavaldon accepted that amendment to the motion. Deputy Attorney Eckman stated that if a PDP should come before the Board with this difficulty of it not being able to be used for residential purposes because of the size of the lot, the Board would only be left with the takings provisions of the Land Use Code. Director Gloss stated that the % mile separation of residential uses from 1-25 is an Article 3 standard. Chairperson Torgerson suggested possibly continuing the item, going back and amending the Structure Plan, and then bringing the two items together to Council. Planner Waido replied that if the Board's concern is only with the RUL district, they may want to recommend approval of the three other components and not that one. He noted that the 1-25 Plan deferred to the Fossil Creek Plan for this area which showed that the area be rural lands — different than Urban Estate, LMN, etc. Chairperson Torgerson stated that there is another regulation that says it cannot be rural residential. Members Gavaldon and Lingle withdrew their motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 13 Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of the GMA Expansion for the Fossil Creek CPA and Wildflower area, and the amendments to the City of Fort Collins/Larimer County IGA. The LeMaster Property is to be excluded from the GMA expansion and the entire Van Cleave Property will be included. The creation of the RUL zone district was excluded from the motion. Member Gavaldon cited the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that it may be a bit unfair for the properties south of Carpenter Road but basically, in terms of commercial and industrial development along that corridor, in considering the interest of the City as a whole,that area would be better served being under the control of the City of Fort Collins than it would be the way it stands now. He stated that he would support the motion. Member Schmidt stated that she would support the motion and noted that this change in the GMA is a commitment by the City of Fort Collins to be more proactive in the GMA. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel, Project Development Plan and Request for Modification Project Description: Request for a multi-family project containing 24 dwelling units within one structure located at 502 West Laurel Street. The units would be divided between 20 2-bedroom units and four 3-bedroom units. The building would be three stories in height. A manager's office and 35 under-structure parking spaces would be included on the first floor. The existing structure would be demolished. The site is at the northwest corner of West Laurel Street and Sherwood Street and is zoned NCB — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: ATTACHMENT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT August 17,2004 rS. Larimer County Commissioners Fort Collins City Council P.O. Box 1190 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Fossil Creek Growth Management Area Boundary Expansion Ladies and Gentlemen: South Fort Collins Sanitation District ("District") owns two parcels of real property consisting of approximately 125 acres and 160 acres,respectively, located within the proposed fossil Creek Growth Management Area Boundary Expansion("GMA Expansion Area'. The Board of Directors of the District has unanimously expressed its opposition to the inclusion of the District's real property within the GMA Expansion Area. I have met with representatives of the County of Larimer and the City of Fort Collins to discuss the concerns of the District regarding the imposition of additional restrictions upon lands owned by it. In the event the real property is included within the proposed GMA Expansion Area,the _. additional restrictions imposed upon the land may interfere with the District's potential use of its real property in the future. As a governmental entity and political subdivision of the State of Colorado,the District requests that the County and the City refrain from taking action which may interfere with the District's future use of the real property. If you have any questions regarding the District's position or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely yours, r SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT By JAL MicIrgel D. DiTullio, Manager Enclosure cc: Mr. Larry Timm, Division Head Mr.Ken Waido, Chief Planner 4 Main Office: 5150 Snead Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970)226.3104 y+ Water Reclamation Facility: 2560 Fast County Road 32 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone (970)226.2484 dl %bNOW TEAM Engineering Jeff Couch, PE 3468 Shallow Pond Drive Fort Collins,CO 80528 (970)231-9937 August 13, 2004 Mr. Greg Byrne, Director Community Planning & Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: GMA Boundary Expansion—Fossil Lake Area Dear Mr. Byrne: This letter is being submitted by 100 percent of the property owners located south of Larimer County Road 32 currently being considered for inclusion within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). This correspondence is intended to summarize our opposition to this action and to request that the entire area south of Larimer County Road 32 be excluded from the proposed GMA expansion. We have several reasons for this opposition as follows: 1. The City of Fort Collins provides no services to this area. A "Community of Interest" usually created by the provision of services must exist prior to completing a legal future annexation. Without services, a"Community of Interest"may never exist in this area. 2. The City of Fort Collins has written policy within its Transportation Master Plan which currently precludes financial participation in the replacement of the 1-25 interchange at State Highway 392. The replacement of this interchange is key to the development of this area. 3. The City of Fort Collins does not have a zoning classification compatible to current zoning established for each parcel. Any land use designation proposed by Fort Collins would be more restrictive in all cases than the current zoning approved by Larimer County. 4. The City of Fort Collins has more restrictive setback requirements than those currently designated by Larimer County. This is especially important to those properties immediately adjacent to 1-25. Mr. Greg Byrne, Director Community Planning & Environment Services City of Fort Collins August 13, 2004 Page Two 5. The City of Fort Collins has existing environmental requirements which would hinder the development of this area. 6. The City of Fort Collins staff has indicated that the primary reason for this expansion is to protect the community separator and Fossil Lake open space. It appears that the development of property adjacent to the interchange is not a priority of the City of Fort Collins. 7. Other properties south of Larimer County Road 32 have already been excluded from the pending GMA expansion, including Gardner Sign, Eagle Ranch, and the LeMaster property. The HWY 392 and 1-25 location holds the potential to be one of the most exciting upcoming commercial and industrial projects in Northern Colorado. The magnitude of this development could rival Loveland's Centera project. The resulting activity could provide a substantial future revenue stream for the City of Fort Collins. This activity would also create a much needed southern entryway into the City of Fort Collins. This entryway, we believe, would facilitate the proposed development as well as showcase the Fossil Lake open space and community separator that Fort Collins has worked so hard to acquire and develop. As property owners, we recognized this potential several years ago. Every property owner along 1-25 participated with CBL Associates to address the interchange and other infrastructure issues in this area. We agreed to provide the right-of--way needed to facilitate the relocation of ramps, frontage roads, and the parallel roadway system proposed west of 1-25. With the support of Windsor, we prepared to construct this infrastructure as a private endeavor twenty years ahead of the proposed CDOT time line. The cooperative effort needed to develop this area does not appear to be forthcoming from the City of Fort Collins. In fact, Fort Collins' actions and implementation of harsher standards would be construed as a "taking' imposed on each of the properties located within the expansion area. While public participation at each interchange along the entire Colorado 1-25 corridor has provided financial rewards for other communities, Fort Collins continues to squander this resource. One only needs to look at the lack of activity at all of the 1-25 interchanges under the Fort Collins purview as an indicator of City intentions. Mr. Greg Byrne, Director Community Planning&Environment Services City of Fort Collins August 13, 2004 Page Three As property owners, we are unified in our request to be excluded from this proposed expansion of the Fort Collins, GMA. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert and Karen Dickinson Dr. Chris Kawcak 8029 South County Road 9 Fossil Creek Veterinary Hospital Fort Collins, CO 80528 7801 SW Frontage Road (970) 226-2897 Fort Collins, CO 80528 (970)204-1663 Kurt Dimick 7715 Promontory Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 (970) 215-7530 Steve Prato Gibraltar Realty&Acceptance James Hammond 4600 South Ulster Hazel-Dell Mushroom Denver, CO 80237-2848 6942 North County Road 13 (303)770-3353 Loveland, CO 80538 (970) 226-0978 Danny and Kim Hirsch Hirsch Trucking Terry and Mary Van Cleave 5730 North County Road 11 C 8021 SW Frontage Road Loveland, CO 80538 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9322 (970) 667-3880 (970)223-0988 Mr. Greg Byrne, Director Community Planning&Environment Services City of Fort Collins August 13, 2004 Page Four cc: Kathay Rennels Karen Weitiwnat, Dist 2 Ladmer County Commissioner 3009 Phoenix District I Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)498-7001 (970)229-9774 krennels@larimer.org kweitkunat@fcgov.com Tom Bender Eric Hamrick, Dist 3 Larimer County Commissioner 3766 Bromley Drive District II Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)498-7002 (970)225-2343 tbenderalarimer.org ehamrick(afcgov.com Glen Gibson Kurt Kastein, Dist 4 Larimer County Commissioner 3325 Silver Oaks Place District III Fort Collins,CO 80526 (970)498-7003 (970) 223-0425 ggibsonRlarimer.org kkastein(@,fcqov.com Ray Martinez, Mayor Marty Tharp, Dist 5 4121 Stoneridge Court 601 Birky Place Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80526 (970)416-2154 (970)484-5711 ramarbnez@fcgov.com mtharD@fcgov.com Bill Bertschy,Mayor Pro Tern David Roy, Dist6 430 Peterson 1030 Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)484-0181 (970)407-7393 wbertschY .fcgov.com droY(a),fcgov.com Bob Mook, Business Editor Fort Collins Coloradoan 1212 Riverside Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 224-7735 BobMook a,Coloradoan.com +V gIRP��~ FORT COLLINS • LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ATTACHMENT 4 August 11,2004 City of Fort Collins Planning Department Pete Wray,Advanced Planning 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Pete: Thank you for updating me on the planning efforts at Fort Collins to coordinate compatible land uses with the airport. It is my understanding that as the city annexes land and considers zoning matters you wish to ensure compatible land uses related to the airport. The airport has an adopted land use plan (copy mailed to you previously) which categorizes various land uses and the levels of compatibility depending on the location within the airport's "area of influence". I strongly support the city following this land use plan as you consider future annexations and zoning changes. It is very important that long range planning decisions be done with the understanding that the airport will continue to grow and the influence on the surrounding communities will increase. As a result any residential development inside the critical zones and the 65 decibel noise curve is not recommended. In addition, any development within the"influence area" should include a condition that an avigation easement is granted, at no cost, to the two cities. The avigation easement is a recorded document and provides an official notice to the property owner and/or tenants/residents that airport activity will be a factor. Also, as we have discussed, the airport has started a planning study to update the airport's current master plan. This study will be completed some time next summer. One of the study elements will be to update the airport's land use plan. It is very possible that there will be changes to this plan; and in anticipation of changes you may want to qualify your land use planning recommendations to account for changes that might be needed as a result of the new airport study. Our master plan consultants will be working with you and the other local planning offices to coordinate the land use planning document. Thank you for your support of the airport and communities by developing a compatible land use plan that benefits everyone. Let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, David C. Gordo r A.A.E. Airport Director c: Ron Phillips Mike Hart 4900 Earhart Road • Loveland,Colorado 80538 • (970)962-2850 • FAX 962-2855 %ter RESOLUTION 2005-028 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA (GMA) BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THE FOSSIL CREEK COOPERATIVE PLANNING AREA (CPA) WHEREAS, on November 21, 2000, the City and Larimer County entered into an intergovernmental agreement(the "IGA") regarding cooperation on managing urban development in which IGA the City and County established the boundaries of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area as depicted on Exhibit "1" of the IGA; and WHEREAS, the IGA, in paragraph 12 thereof, provides that the City and the County may amend the GMA boundary by mutual agreement executed in writing by the parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the GMA to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area and has determined that said area should be included within the GMA boundary for the protection of the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to the IGA to amend Exhibit "1" by showing the new GMA boundary to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area, which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 15th day of March, A.D. 2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" 0 e f d j e � s C i .INTERSTATE,25 I _ rl N (0 y i.r IIiIL.Jllll A o V' O LJ " V ( 6.OV021`A1N0005 h � O 4 ; __.. - •"�� �S COUNTY ROAD 11 ..a F = K KI G S / k s II I tt' �— U v