HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/22/2005 - THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION AND GROWTH MANAGE DATE: February 22, 2005 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Cameron Gloss FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Ken Waldo
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The Southwest Enclave Annexation and Growth Management Area(GMA)Boundary Amendments
for the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) and the Wildflower Area,
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information would be useful to determine the appropriateness of
annexing the Southwest Enclave?
2. Is there support for pursuing a phased approach to the Southwest Enclave
Annexation?
3. If there is support for phasing the Southwest Enclave Annexation, when should the
final phase be annexed?
4. Should staff continue processing the Wildflower Area GMA Amendment? (The
Wildflower GMA Amendment would be required if Council directs staff to pursue
annexation of the entire Southwest Enclave.)
5. Should staff continue processing the Fossil Creek CPA GMA Amendment?
ANNEXATION POLICY & REGULATIONS
The City of Fort Collins and Latimer County, through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA),
defined the Fort Collins Growth Management Area(GMA).Over time,the City will annex land area
outside the current city limits and within the GMA. The GMA will become developed and
urbanized. Under the IGA and adopted City Plan policy, the City has agreed to pursue annexation
of enclaves as they become eligible.
Enclave Annexations are subject to the requirements of Section 31-12-106 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes. When any unincorporated area is entirely surrounded by land within the city's jurisdiction
for at least three years, the city may annex the area without the consent of area property owners.
Under the State statute, enclave annexations are subject to relatively limited public notice
requirements and are exempt from the public hearing requirements applicable to voluntary
annexations.
February 22, 2005 Page 2
BACKGROUND ON THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
Annexation of the Coyote Ridge Natural Area in November 2001 completed the encirclement of an
"enclave" of land that the City of Fort Collins may annex after three years have passed since the
annexation date. The enclave has been created by a long series of annexations dating back to the
1970's. The area has been within the Fort Collins GMA since the original Intergovernmental
Agreement was adopted in 1980.The area is generally bordered on the north by Harmony Road,the
south by Trilby Road, South Taft Hill Road on the west,extending 1/4 mile east S. College Avenue
on the east. This potential annexation area, referred to as the Southwest Enclave, is unprecedented
in its size, encompassing approximately 2 3/4 square miles in area.
Public Review Process
During the summer of 2004, City staff conducted seven neighborhood meetings to elicit feedback
from property owners and residents within the southwest enclave. The meetings were well attended,
with more than 50 residents at most of the sessions.
In conjunction with the neighborhood meetings, a web page was created that provided written
summaries of citizen questions and comments and staff responses raised at each neighborhood
meeting and, some cases, accompanying Powerpoint presentations. In addition, the web page
features a property tax calculator allowing residents to determine the difference between County and
City tax rates.
In addition to the City Council Study Session on February 22nd, the projected public review
schedule is as follows:
April 19, 2005 City Council, Initiating Resolution
May 19, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
June 7, 2005 City Council Annexation Ordinance 1 st Reading
June 21, 2005 City Council Annexation Ordinance 2nd Reading
Impacts to Property Owners/Citizen Concerns
Throughout the public process,citizens have voiced strong opposition to the annexation. Concerns
have ranged from direct,increased costs(e.g.-monthly stormwater utility fees and the electric utility
service rights fee)to a perceived fear that their present way of life will be dramatically altered under
City regulations. While much of the area could be characterized as suburban,portions have a semi-
rural feel with horse boarding and livestock operations occurring on some of the properties.
In general, owners of commercially-zoned properties have expressed fewer concerns than the
residential property owners. Most of the impacts to commercial owners relate to more stringent City
sign regulations and monthly stormwater fees.
Enclave residents and property owners have expressed the following top five perceived negative
impacts. A more detailed matrix describing the financial and regulatory impacts of the annexation
on area property owners is shown in Attachment 3.
February 22, 2005 Page 3
• Electric Utility service recovery fees and loss of PVREA Capital Credits;
• Stormwater Utility Fees;
• Local Streets- On-going maintenance and potential future improvements;
• More Restrictive City Regulations,particularly with respect to the discharge of firearms,
use of electric fences, and vehicle storage; and
• Animal regulations.
Electric Utility Service Ri¢hts Fees/Loss of Capital Credits
When an area annexes to the City, the Fort Collins Electric Utility (FCU) is then authorized and
required to transfer provision of electric service from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority
(PVREA). This transfer will not occur at the time of annexation, but will take a period of time to
accomplish.
Several years ago, a state law was passed that requires municipal utilities to pay to REA a fee of
25% of each existing customer's monthly bill for a period of 10 years from the date of service
transfer.This fee,officially known as the services rights fee,is commonly referred to as the"transfer
fee". Any new customer within a transferred area that comes on the municipal system after the
transfer of power, but before the end of the 10 year period, is required to pay a 5% fee for the
remainder of the 10 year period. This 25% or 5%fee is added to the customer's monthly FCU bill,
and then the City forwards that portion to REA.The 10 year clock in both instances starts at the time
the electric service is transferred to FCU,NOT the date of the annexation. This means for example,
that if a new customer within an annexed area is added to the FCU system 9 years after the annexed
area was transferred from REA to FCU, that customer would have 5% added on their monthly
electric bill for the 1 year that remains on the 10 year clock. There are no charges to customers to
actually make the transfer of power.
In the Southwest Enclave, approximately 1,000 customers would be transferred from PVREA and
100 from Xcel. Given the mandatory transfer fee and the lower electric rates the City charges, an
"average"household currently with REA service that would use 700 kWh of electricity per month
would pay an additional $1.94 per month based on current rates.
There is no provision in the City Code to waive or defer the electric transfer fee. In order for a
waiver or deferral, the City Code would have to be changed. The fees are required to be passed on
to the City's electric customers by language contained in the City Code.Each rate schedule contains
a clause the same as the one in the residential schedule found in Section 26-464(h) on pp. 1791-2
of the City Code.
In addition to the 10-year transfer fee, PVREA members brought onto FCU service will no longer
accrue new capital credits. The capital credits program will still continue after annexation, but
capital credits will only be received based on past energy use.As long as former customers maintain
a current mailing address within PVREA, they will receive funds for which they are eligible.
Capital credits are payable when the board of directors of REA determine that they have met the
financial conditions of their loan agreements and that cash reserves are adequate. PVREA pays
capital credits on a first-in, first-out, rotating basis.
February 22, 2005 Page 4
Stormwater Utility Fees
The City collects monthly stormwater utility fees from all property owners within the city limits.
Within the annexation area, on an"average"size lot 8,300 square feet,residential property owners
could expect a monthly stormwater fee of$14.36. Commercial property owners pay considerably
more due to greater building coverage and paved areas. Properties along the Kel-Mar strip, for
example,would pay a stormwater fee of approximately$134 per month. The stormwater utility fees
go toward flood control projects addressing regional drainage problems,culverts,cross pans,swales,
open channels and more localized drainage issues. The fee also pays for floodplain regulation,
improvements to water quality and administration of the stormwater program.
Stormwater utility fees are determined based upon the size of parcel(s) and the relative amount of
paving, buildings, and other impervious surfaces present. In cases where lots are much larger than
the city average, as are many of the residential properties within the Southwest Enclave, fees are
adjusted downward by the stormwater utility to more accurately represent the true amount of water
runoff.
The City Code makes no provision to exempt properties from the stormwater utility fee except for
roadways and utility rights-of-way.
Local Streets-Future Improvements and Maintenance
Virtually all of the local streets within the Southwest Enclave do not meet the recently adopted
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards(LCUASS)relative to the street cross-section and level
of roadway engineering. The area's local street pavement surfaces vary from gravel to chip sealed
asphalt.
The City will test a street's structural strength to determine if it meets City standards. If it meets the
standards, then the City would take over all maintenance responsibilities as long as it is safe for
bicycles and pedestrians and it has proper drainage. However, since most streets in the annexation
area cannot meet this standard,the City would only provide basic maintenance like pothole filling,
minor crack sealing and slurry sealing. Grading of gravel roads would be completed two to three
times per year.The City may use recycled asphalt in certain areas and add"road dust"to reduce dust
impacts. Any needed maintenance beyond this level, which is roughly that presently provided by
Larimer County,would fall to the local Home Owners Association until such time that the roads are
brought up to City standards.
At some point in the future, roads within the enclave will experience structural problems and need
to be reconstructed consistent with the LCUASS. The most likely way to improve local streets in
the future, in either the County or City,that will meet LCUASS design and construction standards,
will be to form a Special Improvement District (SID). An SID is formed when the majority of
affected property owners give their consent to its creation. It is one of the City's objectives to have
a high percentage of owners willing to be part of a SID, but there may be instances where the City
will push for its formation over the objections of some area property owners. Although the County
would also require local residents to fund future street reconstruction,many property owners within
the enclave have expressed fears that creation of an SID will be forced on them without their consent
and that future roadway improvement costs will not be affordable.
February 22, 2005 Page 5
More Restrictive City Regulations
Many of the enclave residents have expressed concern regarding more restrictive City regulations
and higher level of code enforcement that comes with annexation.
• Firearms cannot be discharged within the city limits. This has been an issue raised
primarily with respect to the protection of livestock from conflicts with wild animals,
such as cougars, and with some domestic animals.
• Existing electric fences can be maintained indefinitely, but the City Code prohibits
construction of new electric fences outside of Industrial-zoned areas.In order for electric
fences to be accommodated within lower-density residential areas, the Land Use Code
would need to be amended.
• Unsheltered storage of inoperable vehicles for 30 days or more is expressly prohibited
within the City.Larimer County regulations,while similar,are less frequently enforced.
Some residents see this increased level of enforcement as an important loss of property
rights.
Animal Regulations
While there is the perception that animal regulations are more restrictive in the City, there appears
to be minimal conflict between present City regulations and the needs of area property owners
regarding livestock and domestic animals. The Urban Estate (UE) and proposed Rural Land (RL)
zone district regulations for horses and other farm animals virtually match that of Larimer County.
Horses are permitted within these areas if a minimum of/z acre of pasture is provided per horse.The
City's regulations do not place a cap on the number of farm animals, but County and State health
regulations still apply that may effectively limit the number of farm animals on a particular property.
Staff is not aware of situations where the number of horses within the enclave exceeds the maximum
number permitted, but this issue can readily be addressed. If the additional horses are legal under
present County regulations,the City may add a provision in the annexation ordinance for the horses
to be "grandfathered." Such language was included in the recent S. Taft Hill Seventh Enclave
Annexation ordinance.
The only known regulatory conflict with respect to the City's animal regulations relates to wild
animals housed at the Larimer County Humane Society located at 6317 Kyle Avenue. Possession
and feeding of certain wild animals is expressly prohibited within the city limits.This conflicts with
the growing needs of the Humane Society to care for and rehabilitate wild animals. To address this
conflict, he staff proposes a revision to Section 4-73 of the City Code exempting the Humane
Society and similar public or quasi-public agencies from the wild or exotic animal restrictions.
February 22, 2005 Page 6
Impacts to City Services
City services most directly impacted by the annexation are police, streets and the electric utility.
Water and sanitary sewer service is provided by the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District& South
Fort Collins Sewer District and is expected to continue at the same level into the future. The
recently constructed Fossil Creek Community Park and two other existing neighborhood parks will
continue to provide needed active recreation opportunities to area residents.
Police Services
The City Council has established a target for providing Police Services at 1.5 Officers per one
thousand population(1.511000). The Southwest Enclave will have full time resident, employment,
and transient populations (delivery drivers, client/customers, etc.). Each of these subgroups
comprises the Service Population of the planning area.
The Service Population of the Southwest Enclave has several components. The Residential part
comes from the U.S. Bureau of the Census which identifies 3,127 residing in the enclave. The
remaining component of Service Population is made up of traffic volume unique to the area,
business employees, and customers. Based on traffic volumes on South College and the number of
businesses in the area,it is estimated that there are,at least,another 2500 new individuals that could
demand Police Services throughout the day.
There is also a need to estimate the Non-sworn or civilian staff needed to support sworn officers.
The patrol officer or detective relies on dispatchers,record clerks,and other administrative support
personnel to provide service. Currently, there is approximately 0.58 FTE personnel per sworn
officer.
Based on the forecasted first year cost, the first year FTE for the planning area would call for 12.0
FTE at an estimated cost of$1,597,232.
Transportation
For arterial streets, costs include overlays, crackseal, surface seals, and reconstructions. Street
sweeping and snow removal are estimated on a cost per mile basis. The estimated annual
maintenance cost for the study area is about $101,000 per year.
For collector streets the same type of costs have been estimated at about $30,900 per year.
For residential streets, the City will not do overlays, crackseal, and reconstruction until the streets
are constructed to City standards. Street sweeping, snow removal and pothole maintenance would
be about $4,900 per year.
Total estimated costs for all three types of streets would be about $136,800 per year.
In addition to these known maintenance costs,the Transportation staff identified five other potential
costs: future widening of streets(street oversizing),long-term maintenance of future developments,
long-term maintenance of existing developments,long-term maintenance of future road widenings,
February 22, 2005 Page 7
and transit service expansion into the area. The cost estimates for these elements have not yet been
completed.
Library Services
The Harmony Branch library is located near the north boundary of the enclave area.
A review of the library patron records indicates that there are 1,137 card holders residing within the
annexation area. This is a conservative estimate. Many families use one card to check out materials
for their children or their spouses in addition to themselves. Also, a significant number of people
use the library for phone or in person reference without getting a card.
Existing Conditions and Redevelopment Opportunity
Much of the Southwest Enclave has already developed with single family residences. There are also
commercial and a few industrial properties fronting along S. College Avenue that compose a small,
but very visible, part of the annexation area.
One striking difference between the annexation area and most other parts of the community is the
amount of open space. Approximately 1/3 of the annexation area includes land that will remain in
an undeveloped condition. Most of the "open space" is due to large parcels purchased through the
City's Natural Area program or are floodways with very limited development potential. Most
notable is the 163 acre Hazaleus Natural Area. In addition, the City is contemplating the purchase
of other parcels with sufficient natural resource value.
Staff completed a study to determine the amount of vacant land available and properties likely to
redevelop (a complete summary table is included in Attachment 4).
As can be seen by the data,most of the residentially-zoned areas within the enclave have relatively
limited development/redevelopment potential, particularly in the near term. Exceptions to this
general pattern are within large vacant or sparsely populated areas zoned Urban Estate that are
located north of Mountain Valley Acres subdivision and LMN-zoned parcels lying south of Trilby
Road and west of College Avenue. Resubdivision potential through most of the balance of the area
is limited in that most of the lots are developed, and four of the eleven largest subdivisions have
recorded private covenants expressly prohibiting resubdivision of lots.
Staff projects that 62 acres of commercial property is likely to redevelop on S.College at some point
in the future; however, the timing is somewhat difficult to predict. If the parcels were consolidated
it would equate to substantial commercial square footage, but this is tempered by the fact that the
properties have the following qualities that often deter redevelopment to higher intensities:
• Small, narrow lots —lots within the Skyview Commercial Subdivision are typically 50
feet in width, where most of the Kelmar Strip Subdivision lots are 100 feet in width;
• Multiple property owners;
• Existing, viable businesses that must be relocated or purchased; and
• A generally unattractive streetscape,with large signs,lack of landscaping,and poor site
and architectural design.
February 22, 2005 Page 8
Southwest Enclave Annexation-Preliminary Revenue Projection
Short-term revenues generated from the annexation area from taxes and fees are relatively minimal.
A detailed assessment of all anticipated short-term and long-term revenues will be provided to the
City Council at the February 22, 2005 Study Session.
There are approximately 1,324 identified parcels in the prospective annexation area. 975 are
residential units, primary single family houses, and there are about 105 mobile homes. There are
a few exempt properties, some personal property tax accounts, 91 commercial and some
homeowner's associations. The projected property tax to the City from the entire area is minimal -
about $265,000 per year.
There are 91 businesses in the annexation area. Of those 91,40 are licensed and collecting city tax
on deliveries made into the city. The largest vendor is Tynan's Nissan who is licensed and collects
city tax on auto sales for Fort Collins residents. The City received about $422,000 per year from
these 40 vendors. The unlicensed vendors are marginal. Staff does not anticipate significant sales
tax generation from them. The City has requested sales tax data from the Colorado Department of
Revenue for these vendors but has yet to receive the information.
Long-term revenues are tied primarily to fees collected at the time of building permit issuance, i.e.-
fees for Plan Review and Inspection, Street Oversizing, Capital Expansion, Storm Drainage Basin
Expansion and Parkland acquisition.
South College Frontaee Annexation Option
One option to annexation of the entire enclave may be to annex the area in phases. Please refer to
the confidential memorandum from the City Attorney's Office regarding this option.
It may be advantageous for the City to annex the commercially-zoned properties within the enclave,
all of which abut S. College Avenue. Properties along the South College Avenue frontage make up
only 132 acres of the 1,758 acres within the enclave,but are the most visible.This area provides the
greatest opportunity for both short-term and long-term revenue generation, requires the least City
services, and gives the City greater control of the land use and development of this important
community gateway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
Regarding the Southwest Enclave Annexation, staff makes the following recommendation:
A. In order to comply with adopted City Plan policies and the Intergovernmental
agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County, the City
Council should initiate proceedings for the Southwest Enclave Annexation.
B. Due to present budget constraints and the high cost to provide City services
to the residential portions of the enclave,annexation of these residential areas
should be postponed. In order to fulfill the City's obligation to Larimer
County to annex properties within the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area, such annexation should be completed no later than 2015.
February 22, 2005 Page 10
BACKGROUND ON THE GMA BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS
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. Staff is seeking direction from
the City Council regarding the Fossil Creek CPA and Wildflower Area GMA amendments (see
Attachment). These two GMA boundary expansions would require certain amendments to the
Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements.
In summary, the GMA amendment portion of this item is composed of the following parts:
1. GMA boundary amendments for:
a. Fossil Creek CPA
b. Wildflower Area
2. IGA Amendments.
1. GMA Boundary Amendments
Fossil Creek CPA
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
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 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 and '/2 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 CPA as being a logical
extension of the Fort Collins GMA boundary and leading to eventual annexation of the area into Fort
Collins.
February 22, 2005 Page 11
Since the establishment of the IGAs between the City, the surrounding communities, and Latimer
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.
Wildflower Area
The Wildflower Area was also identified in Policy GM-1.2 as a potential GMA expansion area
during the recent update of City Plan when it was discovered that the area, as a part of the larger
potential Southwest Enclave Annexation,would need to be included in the enclave annexation under
State statutes. Policy GM-3.1 of City Plan indicates property to be annexed into the City must be
within the GMA boundary. Thus, in order for the City to consider the annexation of the Southwest
Enclave, the Wildflower Area would need to be added into the GMA boundary.
In November 2001, the City annexed the Coyote Ridge Natural Area and in doing so completed a
large enclave in Larimer County completely surrounded by properties that were annexed. This
enclave includes over 14 County subdivisions, including Applewood Estates and Skyview, located
west of College Avenue; Fairway Estates and Fossil Creek Meadows, located east of College
Avenue; and the commercial Kel Mar Strip located along College Avenue. According to State
Annexation Laws,the enclave became eligible for involuntary annexation into the City in November
2004. Staff is asking the Council for direction as to whether or not to consider the enclave
annexation in 2005.
The Wildflower Area is about 160 acres in size, of which 40 acres is City-owned open space (part
of the Cathy Fromme Prairie), and the remaining 120 acres contains about a dozen or so homes on
very large lots. The area is directly adjacent to City-owned and annexed open space to the north,
west, and south. The 120 acres of privately-owned property within the Wildflower Area is
designated on the Structure Plan as"Rural Lands"and would be recommended for a new proposed
Rural Residential RR District upon annexation.
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.
February 22, 2005 Page 12
The proposed amendment is consistent with community goals, principles, and policies as
expressed in City Plan.
Wildflower Area:
In the City's IGA with Larimer County for the Fort Collins GMA, the City has agreed to consider
the annexation of County enclaves when they become eligible for involuntary annexation. In order
to comply with City Plan Policy 3.1, requiring properties to be annexed into the City to also be
within the GMA boundary,the Wildflower Area is being proposed as a GMA boundary amendment.
Staff believes adding the Wildflower Area into the GMA boundary is consistent with City Plan's
goals,principles and policies; it is a logical step toward having a well defined growth management
and annexation boundary (Principle GM-1 of City Plan) and to have a definitive edge to the
community consisting of open and rural lands (Principle RUL-1 of City Plan). No changes to the
area are anticipated in the future. The area is identified on the Structure Plan as"Rural Lands"and
it is anticipated that the proposed RR District would eventually be applied to the area after
annexation.
Fossil Creek CPA:
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
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.
Wildflower Area:
A dozen or so existing single-family homes on approximately 120 acres in the Wildflower Area is
not likely to have a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. The area is surrounded by
properties annexed into the city limits and is,therefore,part of the community and the residents are
already using City public services, including but not limited to parks, library, and streets. A more
detailed examination of the fiscal benefits and costs of the entire Southwest Enclave Annexation will
be presented during the annexation review process.
Fossil Creek CPA:
Staff is convinced that it is just a matter time before commercial development occurs adjacent to the
I-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.
February 22, 2005 Page 13
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.
The proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate an activity that cannot be reasonably
accommodated on lands within the existing GMA boundary.
Wildflower Area:
The Wildflower Area GMA boundary amendment is not being proposed to accommodate any
specific development plans or activities. Again, the amendment is a logical "filling in" of the
existing GMA and City annexed properties and is being proposed at this time so the City can
consider the Southwest Enclave Annexation in 2005. The area is essentially"developed"with the
current uses expected to last well into the future.
February 22, 2005 Page 14
Fossil Creek CPA:
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 1-25 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 1-25. Thus, staff
recommends that 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.
Wildflower Area:
The Wildflower Area is essentially"fully developed"with about a dozen or so homes on 120 acres
and includes 40 acres of City-owned open space. Basically, the City has purchased and protected
the portions of the Wildflower Area that needed public attention.
Fossil Creek CPA:
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.
February 22, 2005 Page 15
Wildflower Area:
The Wildflower Area has had utilities extended to the area. Water service is available throughout
the area from the Loveland-Fort Collins Water District, and sanitary sewer service, from the South
Fort Collins Sanitation District, has been extend to the Registry Ridge development, located inside
the city limits, immediately adjacent to the Wildflower Area to the east. As indicated earlier, no
change is expected in the Wildflower area so there will not be an increased demand for urban
services. The residents of the area are already using existing services.
Fossil Creek CPA:
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
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.
Wildflower Area:
The Wildflower Area GMA boundary amendment area does not create a new edge to the
community, rather it incorporates the existing edge into the GMA boundary.
Fossil Creek CPA:
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.
February 22, 2005 Page 16
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.
Wildflower Area:
The Wildflower Area GMA boundary amendment area is contiguous to existing development within
the city limits, the Registry Ridge development, as well as Mountain Valley Acres located in the
County.
Fossil Creek CPA:
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.
2. IGA Amendments
In 1980,the City of Fort Collins and Latimer 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 amendments, various changes to the
agreements need to be made.
The proposed changes include the following:
1. Growth Management Area.
2. Development in the CPA adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir.
Presented below is a brief summary of the changes to the agreements.
Growth Management Area
This is an IGA between the City and County. The changes to this agreement include a housekeeping
item, eliminating the section establishing the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area Review Board
(UGARB). The UGARB was mutually disbanded by the County and City a couple of years ago
mainly due to infrequent activity because of the annexation requirement for properties contiguous
to the city limits that request development applications from the County within the GMA.
The proposed boundary amendments will require updating the map(Exhibit 1 in the IGA)showing
the new GMA boundary as per the Wildflower and Fossil Creek CPA amendments (see attached
map).
The other change is in the annexation agreements section. Section 8.B.will be reworded as follows:
B. To the extent permitted by law, the City agrees it will not annex property south of
February 22, 2005 Page 17
eounty Road 32 (also latown as die"Fort eotiins+oveimid eonidu,") m miy property
vvitfiin tire poition of tire Fossil ereek Rese,v oft Amn Plan vyltich is focated cast 0
located within anv
mutually agreed upon community separator, or within any designated TDU receiving
area within the GMA boundary unless the County either requires the landowner to
petition for annexation or requests that the City consider annexation. The foregoing
limitations on annexation shall not apply to the annexation ofpublicly owner open space,
trails, or parklands.
The change to Section 8.B.just replaces specific locational references for the Fort Collins/Loveland
community separator("south of County Road 32")and the Fossil Creek TDU Receiving Area("east
of County Road I I...) with the more general "community separator" and "TDU receiving area"
respectively for any such portions of the GMA. According to provisions of the IGA,the County will
require properties within the GMA with any contiguity to the city limits to annex prior to
development.
Development in the CPA adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir
This is also an IGA between the City and County. This IGA establishes a set of resource
management area and natural areas and features regulations to be applied within the CPA (these
regulations are included as Section 8.9.3 of the County's Land Use Code). The County's code also
contains a Section 8.9.2 which contains resource management area and natural areas and features
regulations for the balance of the GMA. City staff will review Section 8.9.2 to see if any provisions
from 8.9.3 need to be transposed into 8.9.2. It is likely that Section 8.9.3 becomes moot with the
change to the GMA boundary.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the potential GMA Boundary amendments,staff makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions:
A. The Wildflower Area GMA boundary amendment is needed in order for the City to
comply with City Plan policies and agreements with Larimer County regarding the
consideration of the Southwest Enclave Annexation.
B. 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.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
At their 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 and Wildflower Area
GMA boundary amendment, and approval of the changes to the Larimer County and City of Fort
Collins IGAs. 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
February 22, 2005 Page 18
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 (see attached map). Staff supports the Board's
recommendation.
Property Owner Opposition
The property owners, especially those in 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 and 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 Larimer 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
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
February 22, 2005 Page 19
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.
Larimer County's Position
Based on a joint study session City staff conducted with the Latimer County Planning Commission
and the Latimer 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 1-25 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 betterjob 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.
February 22, 2005 Page 20
ATTACHMENTS FOR THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
1. Map showing the Southwest Enclave Annexation area and each of the subdivisions contained
within.
2. Map showing a potential Annexation option limited to properties generally fronting South
College Avenue.
3. Matrix summarizing financial and regulatory impacts to area property owners as a result of
annexation.
4. Land Use Analysis-Vacant Land/Redevelopment Opportunities.
5. Southwest Enclave Annexation Evaluation Costs and Revenues Matrix.
6. Summary of Costs/Benefits between the entire annexation area and the S. College Frontage
Option.
7. Projected Police Staff and Budget Impacts.
ATTACHMENTS FOR THE GMA BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS
8. Map showing the locations of the potential Wildflower Area GMA Boundary Amendment
and the Fossil Creek CPA GMA Boundary Amendment.
9. Larger scale map showing the Fossil Creek CPA GMA Boundary Amendment.
10. Minutes of the June 17, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
11. 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.
c. July 9 and August 11,2004,letters from Alan Ohms,resident and property owner within
the potential Wildflower GMA boundary expansion area.
12. 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.
i
1a
I
fix
® Southwest Enclave Annexation A7TACHMENT2
atyaMCD� College Avenue Frontage Area
N
'" AkFR ai
I a
_ Z �F W L T T m E HARM NY O
m i, f
� F G A •MOFfr � D
MCG R mGO
j 1
NS HFORD N ij ..� �
WAY L
PPLE � I
TFCT
S �9qq 1
NILLR ap j cai
� 2
OSSIL CI[E K DR ......••. q
�• LT CENIC DR Z
j y E
z �
1 v S
m
1 � j
1
1
JOHNS LN i
j �..�..�..�..�..�..� 1 r•. j j � �O
1 j LAED LN
WTRILBY RD �' ( t TRILB Dj~2
` Y A j
1OF }O
16............. 2
EVES 3 O O � j ;••.i
o cYi r � •
s
W ......... m
co
O
O
C
z j ...�.�
............ j
a i 1
7TUR
DR
N 2H0/2005
ATTACHMENT
Impact to SW Enclave Property Owners
Service or Fee Larimer County City of Fort Collins
(Prior to Annexation) (After Annexation)
$60.54/mo
Electric Utility bill for Poudre ($47.89 based on City electric
Valley Rural Electric Authority $58.60/mo rate plus 25% service
(PVREA) customers recovery fee to PVREA for
10 years. Reduced to $45.41
after 10 years).
Electric Utility bill for Xcel $59.21/mo $45.41/mo
customers
Capital Credits potentially
PVREA Capital Credits given to PVREA members $0 accrued
annually and on a pro-rated
basis.
$14.36/mo for typical
Stormwater Utility Fee — (8,600 sq. ft.) lot
y Residential $0/mo Example: Fairway Estates
Subdivision estimated
w
average = $20.61/mo
City-wide average of$144/mo
Stormwater Utility Fee — Examples: Kel-Mar Strip
Commercial $0/mo estimated average = $134/mo
Gulley Greenhouse estimated
average = $944.84/mo
Telephone Charge $0/mo $.70/mo
Water Utility Service Provided by Fort Collins- Provided by Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District Loveland Water District
Wastewater (sewer) Provided by South Fort Collins Provided by South Fort Collins
Utility Service Sanitation District Sanitation District
•
Street Maintenance Pothole repair and chip seal Pothole repair and slurry seal
overlay
Generally no curb, gutter or No requirement for retrofit of
w sidewalk required in low curb, gutter and sidewalk for
y Street Design density residential residential areas. New streets
subdivisions. New streets or or reconstruction per
N reconstruction per LCUASS. LCUASS.
At the point that local streets At the point that local streets
Street Improvements fail, property owners will fail, property owners will
financially participate in a financially participate in a
Special Improvement District. Special Improvement District.
3.8% (0.8% County + 3%
Sales Tax City sales tax)
(applicable to residents) 0.8% County sales tax Example: additional $600 City
sales tax on purchase of
$20,000 vehicle
Sales Tax County Sales Tax License/ City Sales Tax License/
(applicable to commercial Collect and Remit County Collect and Remit City sales
u) property owners) sales tax tax
x
R
~ 3.7% Use Tax on motor 6.0% Use Tax on motor
Use Tax (commercial) vehicles vehicles, building materials,
and building materials and other tangible goods
County tax rate including Estimated additional $11.84
Property Tax Poudre Valley Fire District property tax per year on a
levy of 9.301 mills house valued at $300,000
Attachment 5
Southwest Enclave Annexation Evaluation Costs and
Revenues Matrix—to be distributed at the City Council
Study Session
Attachment 6
Summary of Costs/Benefits between the Entire Enclave
Annexation area and the S. College Frontage Option to
be distributed at the City Council Study Session
ATTACHMENT 7
Projected Police Staff and Budget Impacts
The following staff and budget estimates are based on the estimated Service
Population of 5004. The first year cost is based on the 2003 City Budget for
various position classes within FCPS. Sworn is a combination of Patrol Officers
($134,258) and Detectives ($166,436) assuming a 3:1 ratio. The Non-Swom first
year is an average of Information Services ($106,607) and Dispatch ($122,802).
South College Annexation: Projected Staff and Budget Impacts
FTE 1st Year Cost/FTE Total Cost
Sworn 8.5 $ 142,302 $1,209,567
Non-Sworn 4.0 114,704 458.816
Total 12.0 N/A $1,668,383
POSITION: Police Officer
Salary/Benefits: $76,143
2003
ASSOCIATED COSTS: Ongoing One time
Lease costs
Space allocation
25% Lease(Police Officer) 1,889
25% Space allocation (Police Officer) 5,883
Desk
Chair
File Cabinet
Other furniture:
Bookcase
Work table
Computer equipment
Office supplies (ave) 155 140
GroupvAse 104
Telephone
Clothing
Dry Cleaning 335
Lab Supplies 103 206
Film &Photo Processing 87
Uniforms/Equipment 1,802
Uniforms/Equipment(Including MFF& Shotgun) 7,875
Vehicle UP 8,756
Equipment Fund Rents/Outside Vehicle Repair 3,127
Motor Fuel& Oil 1,527
• Training (swom) 1,000
Training (non)
Tuition Reimbursement 1,000
Academy 5,000
FTO Program O/T 8,045
Officer Overtime 5,363
Pager 148
Summons/Form Expenses 250
Hiring Costs 5060
Cell phone Reimbursement 180
2003
A: Ongoing: Sal/Benes 76,224
8: Ongoing: Operating 25,721
C: One time:Operating 32,313
First Year Costs 134,258
Ongoing Costs 101,945
POSITION: Average DB Position
Salary/Benefits: $79,105
2003
ASSOCIATED COSTS: Ongoing One time
• Lease costs 7,555
Space allocation 23,530
25% Lease(Police Officer)
25% Space allocation (Police Officer)
Desk 830
Chair 526
File Cabinet 207
Other furniture:
Bookcase
Work table 266
Computer equipment 2,575
Office supplies(ave) 360 250
Groupwise 104
Telephone 420 470
Clothing 375
Dry Cleaning 335
Lab Supplies 103 206
Film & Photo Processing 87
Uniforms/Equipment 1,802
Uniforms/Equipment(Including MFF& Shotgun) 7,875
Vehicle LIP 8,755
Equipment Fund Rents/Outside Vehicle Repair 3,127
• Motor Fuel& Oil 1,527
Training (swom) 1,000
Training (non)
Tuition Reimbursement 1,000
Academy 5,000
FTO Program OR 8,045
Officer Overtime 5,363
Pager 148
Summons/Form Expenses 250
Hiring Costs 5060
Cell phone Reimbursement 180
2003
A: Ongoing: Sal/Benes 79,105
B: Ongoing: Operating 32,387
C: One time:Operating 54,944
First Year Costs 166,436
Ongoing Costs 111,492
POSITION: Average Info.Services Position(including Lab)
Salary/Benefits: $66,562
2003
ASSOCIATED COSTS: Ongoing One time
Lease costs 7,555
Space allocation 23,530
25% Lease(Police Officer)
25% Space allocation (Police Officer)
Desk 842
Chair 280
File Cabinet 329
Other furniture:
Bookcase
Work table 258
Computer equipment 2,450
Office supplies(ave) 150 250
Voicemail 31
Voicemail 96
Groupwise 104
Telephone 504 690
Telephone
Clothing
Dry Cleaning
Uniforms/Equipment
Uniforms/Equipment(Including MFF)
Traffic Radar Equipment
Vehicle UP
Equipment Fund Rents
Motor Fuel&Oil
Training(sworn)
Training (non) 1000
• Academy
FTO Program Orr
Officer Overtime
Pager 148
Hiring Process 1648
Cell phone 180
2003
A: Ongoing: Sal/Benes 66,562
B: Ongoing: Operating 9,633
C: One time:Operating 30,412
First Year Costs 106,607
Ongoing Costs 76,195
POSITION: Average Comm Center Position
Salary/Benefits: $73,534
2003
ASSOCIATED COSTS: Ongoing One time
Lease costs 7,555
Space allocation 23,530
25% Lease(Police Officer)
• 25% Space allocation (Police Officer)
Desk
Chair
File Cabinet
Other furniture:
Bookcase
Work table
Computer equipment
Office supplies(ave) 360
Voicemail
Voicemail
Groupwise 104
Telephone
Telephone
Clothing
Dry Cleaning
Uniforms/Equipment
Uniforms/Equipment(Including MFF)
Traffic Radar Equipment
Vehicle UP
Equipment Fund Rents
Motor Fuel &Oil
Training (swom)
Training (non) 1500
• Academy
FTO Program O/T 7,928
Officer Overtime 5,285
Pager 148
Hiring Process 2,678
Cell phone 180
2003
A: Ongoing: SaMenes 73,534
8: Ongoing: Operating 15,028
C: One time:Operating 34,240
First Year Costs 122,802
Ongoing Costs 88,562
ATTACHMENT 8
1 In
y
I
a
w
r .ar` aau f ax
v P
r �
`^ iMul n s
r
I �
k r�
c DI
U n
t
I
I E
ATTACHMENT 9
N.
Lj
t.
rr
U A
irtT t Y �
a $H 1 f
'j, ctwv m
O 40 ,±��p
y' Y .✓ t7 f:- }° Y *AQ to
r y�
U � { 'a1 1 •'nF"D jr`$.1 '�.i't °`up T'y�s`4 tK k\ � ` �a 1�"
l it L1
[ a ! lit
all
r �
1 `^'+, ~j ;✓.f"2.,t�u"" ' ' hr nF"r+A' � fft f�m S1
Rp t I t 4 6DSb�
VoilY al; WL Pis,
ATTACHMENT10
• 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 [GA.
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/1-25 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 %s
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 % 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 % mile of the
Interstate. It is one thing that may need to be examined in terms of adding the % 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 % 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 comer 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 Attorney 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.
I _ ¢ =r' 17AfiMENT 11
s SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT
August 17, 2004
Latimer 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 Latimer 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.
=q! If you have any questions regarding the District's position or desire further clarification,
please feel free to contact me. 'Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION
DISTRICT
Michgel D. DiTuilio,Manager
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Larry Timm, Division Head
Mr.Ken Waido, Chief Planner
ry�
Main Office: 5150 Snead Drive Fort Collins, CO 80425 Phone (970)226.3104
'`'+ Water Reclamation Facility: 2560 East County Road 32 Fort Collins. CO 80528 Phone (970)226.2484
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 Making' 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
Fat Coffins,CO 80528
(970)215-7530
Steve Prate
Gibrallar Really&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 11C 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 Weitkunat, Dist 2
Larimer County Coma issioner 3009 Phoenix
District I Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)498-7001 (970)229-9774
krennels&Iadmer.org kweitkunatOfcgov.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
tbender(@Iadmer.org ehamrick(g fcgov.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
ggibson(g ladmer.org kkastein anfcgov.com
• Ray Martinez,Mayor Marty Tharp,Dist 5
4121 Stoneddge Court 601 Birky Place
Fort Collins,CO 80525 Fort Collins,CO 80526
(970)416-2154 (970)484-5711
ramartinez( -gov.com mthari) 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
wbertschv@fcgov.com droy(@fcqov.com
Bob Mook, Business Editor
Fort Collins Coloradoan
1212 Riverside Avenue
Fort Collins,CO 80522
(970)224-7735
BobMook gOColoradoan.com
•
Alan D. Ohms
1665 West Trilby Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
July 9,2004
Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner
Fort Collins Current Planning Dept.
Box 580
Fort Collins CO80522-0580
Dear Mr. Waido:
RE: Wildflower Cooperative Planning Area—Potential Annexation
I attended the public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board June 17,2004,at which time the Board
moved to recommend adding Fossil Creek and Wildflower to the GMA, except for the proposed RUL
(Rural Lands)zoning district. My representative,JoAnne Wortman, also raised concerns about this zoning.
Unreasonable lot size. The proposed 10-acre minimum lot size is excessively restrictive. Our current
County zoning is FA-1 Farming,with a minimum lot size of 2.3 acres. Most residential districts in the City
allow for minimum lot size of less than 1/4 acre,except Urban Estate,which allows 1/2-acre lots. The
most restrictive City zoning district is currently Residential Foothills, with minimum 2.29-acre lots. As
you can see,a 10-acre lot size is incongruous with other City and County zoning standards.
Proximity to urban development. Wildflower borders the Registry Ridge subdivision on the east.
Registry Ridge consists of several hundred houses, 1800 to 3700 square feet, worth up to $450,000,on lots
ranging from
approximately
1/8 acre to 1/3
acre, zoned Low
Density
Residential and
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
(including multi-
family dwellings
and various uses).
My property is
the second lot Registry Ridge from my east property line. Note housing density.
from Registry
Ridge in the Wildflower area. Given the close proximity to higher-density urban.housing,a minimum lot
size of 1/4 acre,multi-family dwellings,and diverse uses in Wildflower is reasonable.
Property values. Although the proposed Rural Lands zoning district attempts to accommodate current
farm and livestock activities, the continued desirability of the properties for farming and raising livestock
significantly decreases following annexation, especially for those properties closest to urban subdivisions.
Following annexation,I will be incorporated into the City without any of the advantages of owning a City
1
Alan D. Ohms
1665 West Trilby Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
August 11, 2004
Mr. Darin Atteberry
Interim City Manager
City of Fort Collins
Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Atteberry:
RE: Proposed Annexation of Wildflower and surrounding community("Misc1")
I received your letter of July 29 informing me that the City's staff recommendation will be to create the new zoning, as is,
with 10-acre minimum lots. At the neighborhood information meeting August 5, Cameron Gloss informed the audience
that, although he sympathizes with the 3,000 residents who are opposed to annexation,the City staff is going to
recommend the annexations and new zoning anyway, and that the City Council always passes what staff recommends.
Indeed, Councilman Hamrick is quoted in Sunday's Coloradoan as stating, 'I do not believe council should merely rubber
stamp decisions made by staff."In reality this is what happens. Its a done deal, the decision is made,yet you'encourage"
me to"voice my concerns."
Well, here are my concerns. The City's'vision"for the property next door is high density urban housing, as I am reminded
every day when I look at Registry Ridge.When it comes to my property,the City feels compelled to"protect the lifestyles
of current
Registry Ridge is larger in area than Wildflower and"Misc1"combined. larger-lot
rural areE
The best
way for the
City to
protect rural
areas is to
leave them
in the
County. l
am being
ped This does nothing for my rural lifestyle. 19 other
with
annexation
areas, some several miles away, some of which are getting Urban Estate zoning (1/2-acre lots). Why not allow Urban
Estate for all proposed annexation areas? I am opposed to annexation, but if its a done deal, then I would at least like the
option to subdivide my 6.35 acres into two lots.This will not impact my immediate neighbors in "Misc1,"where the lots are
about 2 '/2 to 5 acres, and it certainly won't impact Registry Ridge, where the lots are as small as 118 acre.The largest
minimum lot size in the County and all other existing City zoning districts is 2.3 acres. Why set 10 acres in concrete?
Since ely,
Alan D. Ohms
Copies: Mayor and City Council Members Deputy City Manager
Community Planning/ES Director Current Planning Director
Planning and Zoning Board Advance Planning Director
Chief Planner
l
ATTACHMENT12
•
4,aeoo` FORT COLLINS • LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
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 ase 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 A.A.E.
Airport Director
• c: Ron Phillips
Mike Hart
4900 Earhart Road •Loveland,Colorado 80538 •.(970)962-2850 • FAX 962-2855
February 22, 2005 Page 9
C. Properties fronting South College Avenue should be annexed as
expeditiously as possible. These non-residential properties provide a more
favorable cost-benefit ratio to the City,create an important south gateway to
the community, and have the potential to generate revenues necessary to
offset additional service costs to the residential areas.
Permitted on firearm owners'
40 Discharging of Firearms property or with property Prohibited
owner's permission
Horse Ownership One horse per ''/z acre of lot No change
area
0 Farm Animal Ownership Permitted Permitted within Urban Estate
r_ Zone District
0
w
a) Electric Fences Permitted Prohibited except in the
m Industrial Zone District
Per City Sign Code
Permanent non-conforming
Sign Regulations Per County Sign Code signs removed within 5 years
and prohibited signs within 60
days
Private Covenants Subject to private standards No change
as recorded
•
ATTACHMENT 4
•
c o0000 0 ov m LO
N O
O
7
O O O O CD O O to N
Y. �-- to N
6' O O O C7 tD
I, r E r
E t0 co to
O
U
LO UD 00
N O M O co N V- cob tD t0 M N
CL
O
a
yy N N N N u7
C
r to N CD co t0 Ntnr-
N N co (0 co
O � �
R a
C
Q
d
N
� c
'8 40
C
R �
0
m m
s
O. ° «
C o m m m
> ro E
(U o e S m V a
N > w m w K m
Gs o E
• 3 faa m
o «
w « m m a to �
m c z io « > z �o _s o
C O R 2 � WD1— W �
U) N > 7 K F- C z `
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 mufti-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:
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 Cdy 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 Ladmer 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.
lot, because a 10-acre minimum lot size eliminates the future development potential of the properties in the
Wildflower area. Consequently, a 10-acre minimum lot size reduces property values considerably. Right
• now my property is worth about$350,000 as one lot with a house. If I were to subdivide and develop
under current County zoning rules, I could have two properties worth$700,000 or more. With 1/2-acre lot
sizes, I could have a dozen properties worth over$3 million. With 1/4-acre lot sizes, I could have two
dozen properties worth over$6 million. On the other hand, a more reasonable minimum city lot size, such
as 1/4 acre, does not force anyone to subdivide. Those property owners who do not wish to subdivide are
certainly welcome to keep the same size lot as they have now.
Advantages to the City. At the
June 17 meeting, a Planning
Department staff member
mentioned that annexing.
Wildflower would provide no
foreseeable "positive net fiscal
benefit'to the City at this time.
However, if some or all of the
Wildflower property owners were
to subdivide and develop in the
future,the City would realize
increased tax revenue from the
Registry Ridge from my southeast comer. additional properties.
I request zoning more in line with Low Density Residential,Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
• (1/4 acre lots and varied uses), or Urban Estate(1/2 acre lots),with provisions for current farm-related
uses to accommodate existing activities,when Wildflower is annexed. The Rural Lands (RUL) district,
as currently written, severely limits the future potential of these soon-to-be City properties.
Thank you.
Since,rely, l
/�,�� fly`. /l• ;/. ^
Alan D. Ohms
•
2