Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDS TO GMA, FOSSIL CREEK COOP. PLAN. AREA - 19-04 - AGENDA - (3)WHEREAS, under the authority granted by said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, a number of meetings were held among Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, Timnath, and Larimer County with the intent of reaching agreement as to municipal annexations in the Fort Collins "Cooperative Planning Area" adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said meetings, the parties have agreed, as provided hereafter. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations herein expressed and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE FORT COLLINS COOPERATIVE PLANNING AREA ADJACENT TO FOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR. The Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir is identified as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. ANNEXATION IN THE FORT COLLINS COOPERATIVE PLANNING AREA. The parties A*� agree that no municipal annexations shall occur within the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area described on Exhibit "A" except annexations to Fort Collins. 3. COUNTY SUPPORT. The County agrees. to oppose, by such means as it deems dg$-� appropriate, any annexation into any incorporated town or city except as is authorized in paragraph 2 above. 4. ENFORCEMENT/BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their representatives, successors and assigns, and may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction. 5. TERM/TERMINATION. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for a period of ten (10) years from the date of its execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless at least six (6) months prior to scheduled expiration, any parry should notify the other parties of its decision that the Agreement not be renewed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Page 2 of 4 W30 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Regarding Annexations in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area Adjacent to Fossil 4— Creek Reservoir) THIS AGREEMENT, is executed this 28th dayof June , 1999, by and between LAMM COUNTY, COLORADO, a body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "County", THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Fort Collins", THE CITY OF LOVELArm, a, municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Loveland", and THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, a Colorado statutory town, hereinafter referred to as "Windsor". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, continued growth in the Fossil Creek Reservoir area suggests that increased coordination among the parties to this Agreement can result in better management and control of the development in this area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has found and declared that in order to provide for planned and orderly development within Colorado and a balancing of the basic human needs of a changing population with legitimate environmental concerns, the policy of the State of Colorado is to clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has designated certain powers to local governments, among them the power to regulate the location of activities and developments which may result in significant changes in population density, the power to provide for phased development of services and facilities, the power to regulate the use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on the community or surrounding areas, and the power to otherwise plan for and regulate the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional rights; and . WHEREAS, pursuant to said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes; as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has authorized and encouraged local governments to cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning and regulating the development of land, including but not limited to the joint exercise of planning, zoning, subdivision; building, and related regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to various statutes of the State of Colorado (including 31-23-255, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended), the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has enacted various supervisory tools in order that the State may better monitor the planning activities of units of local governments; and Zq Exhibit A CRY of Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area Ad)acent to Fossil Creek Reservoir 1 0 1 Miles Approximate Street Location Streets / './ City Limits ;'4:,;'' Uga Boundary Cooperative Planning Area Water Features IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. City Clerk AS TO FORM: City Attorney n • �0��'l SEAL :•err. •: ME,COCORP-9 Deputy Clerk and ecorder AS TO FORM`. County THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS OLORADO A Municipal Corporation By: Mayor THE COUNTY OF LA�IMER, COLORADO ByC j` i A- Choir, Board of Commissioners Page 4 of 4 Z7 5. GENERAL LAND USES. Development Plans for lands located within the Cooperative Planning Area described in Exhibit "A" may be submitted only for land uses which are authorized pursuant to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. 6. ANNEXATION. The County agrees to require a binding annexation agreement (see Appendix E of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area dated May 5, 1998) as a condition of approval on any development application. 7. COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION. The County agrees to undertake such processes as are necessary to consider for adoption such legislative amendments as needed to fully implement this agreement. These amendments shall include, but are not limited to, adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area as an overlay zone, adoption of all Resource Management Area regulations, Natural Areas and Features regulations, Conservation Development regulations and general land use regulations as are contemplated in this Agreement. Upon adoption of such regulations, the County. agrees that no land use or development application for which approval by the Board of County.: Commissioners is required shall be approved for any land in the Cooperative Planning Area unless such development application has been determined by the County to be in full compliance with such adopted regulations. 8. ENFORCEMENT. It is the intent of both the City and the County that this Agreement be binding upon both the City and the County, and that either party hereto shall be permitted to specifically enforce any provision of this agreement in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. TERM. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for a period of ten years from the date of its execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five year terms unless at least six (6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either party should notify the other party of its decision that the Agreement not be renewed. 10. APPLICABILITY. Whenever a provision ofthe Larimer County Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution, the Larimer County Planned Unit Development Resolution, or the Larimer County Mobile Home Resolution or a provision of any Land Use Code adopted in lieu of such regulations is inconsistent with regulations adopted to implement this Agreement, such implementing regulations shall apply, provided that in no event shall such implementing regulations take precedence over the Larimer County Flood Plain Resolution. 11. SEVERABILITY. In the event either party is prevented by court order from performing any provision of this agreement or enforcing any regulations, both parties shall have the option of terminating this agreement upon mutual consent. Page 3 of 4 agreement regarding certain standards and regulations that should apply to development within the Fort Collins "Cooperative Planning Area" adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is, with regard to the Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir, to implement policy GM-1.3 of the "Principles and Policies" element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations herein expressed and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: 1. IDENTIFICATION OFTHE FORTCOLLINS COOPERATIVE PLANNING AREA ADJACENT T6 FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR. The Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir is identified as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. REFERRAL To CITY. All development applications as described in paragraph (3) below, that are received by the County for development of lands located within the Cooperative Planning Area identified on Exhibit "A" shall be processed, reviewed and approved or denied by the County. Such applications, upon receipt thereof, shall be promptly referred to the City's Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services for review and comment. No action of the County in either approving or denying any such development application shall be taken until it has received, in writing, the comments of the City, provided, however, that if the City fails to so respond to such referral within twenty-one (21) days of receipt thereof, then the County may proceed to act upon such development application without the comments of the City.. 3. ADDITIONAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. Land use or development applications for which approval by the Board of County Commissioners is required and administrative site plan reviews for large retail establishments [except for Amended Plats, Minor Land Divisions (NED), down zonings requested by Larimer County, and zoning special reviews which do not generate more than forty-five (45) vehicle trip ends (or equivalent) per day as defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual] (which, for purposes of this Agreement shall be referred to as "development applications') shall not be approved by the County for any land located within the Cooperative Planning Area described in Exhibit "A" unless such development application has been determined by the County to be in full compliance with the following regulations which are referenced in Appendix I of the Larimer County Urban Growth Area Supplemental Regulation: a. All Resource Management,Area regulations as contained on pages on I-18 and I-19 of Appendix I. b. All Natural Areas and Features Regulations commencing on page I-57 and concluding on page I-67 of Appendix I. 4. CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENTS. In"Conservation Developments" all open space shall be maintained and remain undeveloped in perpetuity in accordance with appropriate Management Plans as provided in the Larimer County Land Use Code. Page 2 of 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Regarding Development in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area Adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir) THIS AGREEMENT, is executed this 31 day of A&Iq u5't , 1999, by and between LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, a body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, continued growth in the Fossil Creek Reservoir area suggests that increased coordination between the parties to this Agreement can result in better management and control of the development in this area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has found and declared that in order to provide for planned and orderly development within Colorado and a balancing of the basic human needs of a changing population with legitimate environmental concerns, the policy of the State of Colorado is to clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly ofthe State of Colorado has designated certain powers to local governments, among them the power to regulate the location of activities and developments which may result in significant. changes in population density, the power to provide for phased development of services and facilities, the power to regulate the use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on the community or surrounding areas, and the power to otherwise plan for and regulate the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional rights; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has authorized and encouraged local governments to cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning and regulating the development of land, including but not limited to the joint exercise of planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations; and WHEREAS, -pursuant to various statutes of the State of Colorado (including 31-23-255, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended), the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has enacted various supervisory tools in order that the State may better monitor the planning activities of units of local governments; and WHEREAS, under the authority granted by Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, a number of meetings were held between the parties to this Agreement with the intent of reaching zy A.3. Fort Collins City Plan Principles and Policies Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priority for future subarea planning: • I-25 Corridor • Community Commercial District and Vicinity Summit View/Mountain Vista • Campus West Community Commercial District • CSU Campus District — Foothills Campus • East Mulberry Corridor • Fossil Creek Reservoir Area • South College Corridor • Foothills • Poudre River Corridor • West Central Neighborhoods PRINCIPLE ENV 5: Natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced within the developed landscape of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 5.1 Protection and Enhancement. The City will seek to integrate wildlife habitat, riparian areas, wetlands and other important natural features into the developed landscape by directing development away from sensitive areas and using innovative planning, design, buffering, and management practices. The City's regulatory powers will be used to preserve, protect, and enhance the resources and values of natural areas by directing development away from sensitive natural features -- such as wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife habitat. When it is not possible to direct development away from natural areas, these areas will be protected in the developed landscape. Policy GM-1.3 Cooperative Planning Area Boundary. The City will collaborate with Larimer County to explore establishing a Cooperative Planning Area boundary. The objective of the Cooperative Planning Area is to preserve opportunities to expand the supply of buildable land for urban purposes within the City, when the Community Growth Management Area boundary is filled in. The decision to expand or not expand into these areas shall be as part of a comprehensive update of City Plan. In the interim, new residential development in the Cooperative Planning Area should be permitted as clustered development, so that large parcels of land may remain for future urban development, as well as forming an edge to the community. "Future urbanized area development standards" will be prepared to apply to all new development within the Cooperative Planning Area in order to ease the transition of Page 46 Appendix A o City Plan Principles 6 Policies Z3 cooperative planning arrangement (via intergovernmental agreement) between the municipality and Larimer County. Each municipality will have its own CPA, and no municipality's CPA should overlap that of another municipality. Any planning in the CPA should be done jointly by the municipality and the County. It is intended that rural development in the CPA proceed, but in a manner that does not preclude or jeopardize urbanization when and if it becomes part of the municipality's GMA. Another principle behind the CPA ideas is that if each municipality would identify its own CPA, the potential for "annexation wars" would diminish. For this reason, the south portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir planning area is shown in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to be in the Fort Collins CPA. The northwest and southwest corners of County Road 32 and I-25 have a statement on the Plan map indicating that when development is proposed in these areas then a unified development plan is encouraged, but not required, to be submitted for the development parcel and all other parcels in the designated areas north of County Road 32 or south of County Road 32. The objective of the overall development plan requirement is to achieve coordinated site planning of water and sewer infiastructure, internal road circulation/access to the frontage roads and potential land use relationships. The Plan should be at the concept level and would not depend upon detailed engineering. This submittal will enable the applicant, surrounding property owners and review agencies supplying infiastructure an improved opportunity to coordinate planning efforts, achieve infrastructure cost economies, and insure efficient transportation circulation to serve potential land uses. These areasa are included in the Larimer County TDU "Sending Area" and land owners are encouraged to participate I that program. FC-I-7 Larimer County will establish a Transfer of Density Units (TDU) program for the Fossil Creek Reservoir planning area. The receiving area for this program will be entirely within the Growth Management Area portion of the planning area, while the majority of the sending area sites will be located outside the planning area in the region between the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. The TDU program and supporting maps for the planning area will be established through the adoption, by Larimer County, of a Fossil Creek Reservoir Area TDU regulation. Page 42 Chapter 6 o Implementation existing platted lot, the E-Estate designation establishes the density and standards at which that redevelopment could occur. ' FC-I-2 Areas north of County Road 36 and west of County Road 11 are designated for a density of between 5 to 12 units per acre, and are required to annex prior to development. If one of these properties was not eligible for annexation, the County will process the application in accordance with density and development standards effecting the area. FC-I-3 Areas east of County Road 7 and west of I-25 designated as FA-1 zoning are required to cluster at rural conservation development standards, as outlined in the Latimer County Master Plan. FC-I-4 Activity or development in the Resource Management Area shall meet the Natural Area Resources Management Plan requirements. FC-I-5 The balance of the planning area south of County Road 36 and east of County Road 11 shall remain under current County zoning of FA 1 Farming (TDU Receiving Area). The City will not annex these areas until development has occurred at. Plan densities and standards by utilization of lthe proposed TDU Program. In the interim, development policies and proposal regulations shall require development proposals to meet the following standards: FC-I-5.1 The maximum number of units which may be developed are based on the underlying zoning and are calculated as follows: Total number of acres, less areas in designated flood ways, divided by minimum lot size for the applicable zoning classification. FC-I-5.2 All dwelling units must be located in clusters on the site such that the cluster is consistent with the planned densities and standards specified in the Land Use Framework Plan and development regulations for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The residual area of the development not in the cluster must be designated as a future development area. FC-I-5.3 The designated future development area could further be developed to planned densities and standards upon adoption of a Transfer of DensityUnit Program Land Regulation by Larimer County. FC-I-6 According to the County's Master Plan, a Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) is intended to be the area which is beyond a municipality's Growth Management Area (GMA) but which could conceivably be annexed in the long term. The CPA is a Chapter 6 o Implementation Page 41 zi ZRr/,44er ( 0./Gfy &6Fz l So A ZOoo developer to make certain improvements to County roads outside the City limits. If improvements are to be made to County roads outside the City limits, the City agrees to send plans of said improvements to the Larimer County Planning Department and Larimer County Public Works Department for review and comment. The City also agrees to provide routine maintenance and inspection of all such public infrastructure improvements (whether on or off the development site) which, but for the design requirements established in the Larimer County Land Use Code for large retail establishments and for the Fossil Creek Area, would not have been required by Larimer County Urban Standards. (Examples of such improvements may include transit facilities, bicycle lanes, or parkway/median landscaping.) 10. Collection of a Park Fee for the GMA Zoning District. The County shall collect a community and neighborhood park fee -in -lieu -of -land dedication from all residential development located within the GMA at the time of issuance of applicable building permits. The County shall remit this fee to the City to be used to benefit residents of the area where it is collected. 11. Collection of a Drainage Basin Fee for the GMA Zoning District. Pursuant to Title 30, Article 28, Section 133 (11), Colorado Revised Statutes and Section 9.2.4 (Imposition of Drainage/Storm Water Facility Fees, ofthe Larimer County Land Use Code), the County shall collect a drainage fee at the time of issuance of applicable building permits for improvements on lands located within the GMA in the same amount as the basin fee collected by the City of Fort Collins within the City limits. Such fee shall be used for Drainage Capital Improvements within the basin from which the fee was collected. Drainage improvements shall be consistent with the current Drainage Basin Master Plans and project scheduling shall be mutually agreed upon by the City and County. The drainage fee shall be reviewed annually by the County and any needed modifications shall be made to Section 9.2.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 12. Amendments to the GMA Boundary. The City and County agree that any amendments to the GMA Boundary shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties. The County shall implement such amendments in accordance with the procedures and requirements for amendments to zoning district boundaries outlined in the Larimer County Land Use Code. 13. Enforcement. Both the City and County intend that this Agreement be binding upon them. Either party hereto shall be permitted to specifically enforce any provision of this agreement in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 14. Term. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for a period of ten years from the date of its execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five year terms unless, at least six (6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either party notifies the other party, in writing, of its decision that the Agreement not be renewed. 7 0 Proposed GMA Expansion for Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area LI „...... �.. Feb. 1, 2005 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. 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. Fossil Creek CPA should be annexed into Fort Collins. Staff also knows that Loveland has expressed some interest, but at this point, seems to be willing to honor the intergovernmental agreements. 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 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 /7 1. The proposed boundary amendment will require updating the map (Exhibit 1 in the IGA) showing the new GMA boundary as per the Fossil Creek CPA amendment. In order to become an official amendment to the IGA the boundary change must be approved by both the City Council and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. 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. During public input at the June 17 meeting, two property owners within the Fossil Creek CPA indicated their properties were divided by the GMA boundary as proposed by staff. In one case (the Van Cleave property), the .proposed GMA boundary divided the ownership into a 35+ acre (in) portion and a 5 acre (out) portion; while in the other case (the Lemaster, Wortley, Skogan property), the proposed GMA boundary divided the ownership into a 40 acre (in) portion and an 80 acre (out) portion. It was not the intent of the staff s proposed GMA boundary to divide properties under single ownership. The Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation was to include the 5 acres, along with the balance of 35+ acres, of the Van Cleave property within the GMA boundary and to exclude the 40 acres, along with the balance of 80 acres, of the Lemaster, Wortley, Skogan property from the GMA boundary amendment. Staff supported the Board's recommendation. FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL At their regular meeting on March 15, 2005, the Fort Collins City Council voted unanimously to approve of the Fossil Creek CPA GMA boundary amendment, authorized the Mayor to sign a revised IGA with Larimer County, and forward the issue to the County for their decision. The Council also directed staff to work with property -owners and developers regarding appropriate uses of land in the expansion area. Staff has started meeting with the interested parties. The eventual results of these meeting may be amendments to the land use designations on the City's Structure Plan map. Property Owner Opposition The property owners within the Fossil Creek CPA appear entrenched in their position that they do not want to be included in the GMA and eventually annexed into Fort Collins. These property -owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction, with Loveland or Windsor being the obvious options. Staff has learned that some owners have 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 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. As anticipated in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan's implementation strategies, extending the GMA to include the CPA would create a desirable edge to the community. The existing boundary to be extended is contiguous to existing developed areas of the City of Fort Collins. The proposed amendment would contribute to the compact urban form of the city. The Fossil Creek CPA is contiguous to existing development in the city limits, according to Section 3.7.2 Contiguity of the City's Land Use Code. According to Section 3.7.2, contiguity to existing development is not affected by publicly owned open space or a lake/reservoir. The CPA is thus adjacent to developments, such as Westchase, located north of Fossil Creek Reservoir. IGA Amendments In 1980, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). The agreement established a united, cooperative planning effort towards development goals and policies for the effective management of development in the Fort Collins urban area. The last time the IGA was amended occurred in November 2000. As a result of the proposed GMA boundary amendment the following change to the agreement need to be made. 15 The proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate an activity that cannot be reasonably accommodated on lands within the existing GMA boundary. There are five entry corridors into Fort Collins from I-25. From north to south they are: Mountain Vista Drive, Mulberry Street, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and Carpenter Road. The Structure Plan designates three of them for commercial development: Mulberry, Prospect, and Carpenter. One is almost fully developed (Mulberry), leaving two (Prospect and Carpenter) remaining available for future commercial development. The I-25 Subarea Plan, an element of City Plan, identifies the Prospect interchange as an "activity center" which will be encouraged to develop with a mix of uses, including residential. While Prospect will also likely be the location for some highway oriented commercial development, outside of Mulberry, the community does not have an area that can offer location. attributes to serve the regional retail market and traveling public on I- 25. Thus, staff recommends the CPA area should be added to the GMA to provide for certain types of commercial uses that cannot be accommodate, nor perhaps should not be accommodated, in other parts of the GMA. The land proposed for inclusion in the GMA contains environmental resources or hazard constraints that make it unsuitable for its proposed use. The properties immediately surrounding Fossil Creek Reservoir are a very important environmental resource for the community. Maintaining a separation of the Fort Collins and Loveland urban areas is also a very high priority of the two communities and the County. The City and County have acquired, or otherwise preserved, a significant portion of the open space and natural areas within the CPA. Additional public purchases/preservations are likely in the future. There are also some important wetlands that will remain privately owned, for example, on the west end of the horse farm property on the southwest corner of the I-25 interchange. One reason for amending the GMA boundary for the CPA is to set the stage for eventual annexation of property into Fort Collins. This would allow the City to apply to the remaining privately owned properties its specific environmental protection development regulations contained in the Land Use Code. Development will eventually happen in the CPA. Applying City regulations will protect the natural environment. There are no specific environmental or hazard constraints that would prohibit development of the area. The proposed amendment would result in a logical change to the GMA. Factors to be included in making this determination will include, but not be limited to, the following: The proposed amendment would allow for the logical, incremental extension of urban services. Water service is available throughout the CPA from the Loveland -Fort Collins Water District, and sanitary sewer service is available from the South Fort Collins Sanitation IJ4 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. 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, Rural Residential 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. 13 The expansion area, when annexed, will be subjected all of the urban service provision requirements of the "Adequate Public Facilities (APF)" criteria contained in the City's Land Use Code. Water service is available throughout the expansion area from the Loveland -Fort Collins Water District, and sanitary sewer service is available from the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The current I-25/SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange has serious capacity problems. 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. 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 in the future. Other urban services (police, parks, etc.) will be provided typically through the payment of impact fees and developed according to the City's mater plans for such services and facilities. Fire protection will be provided by the Poudre Fire Authority. City of Fort Collins GMA Amendment Criteria City Plan Policy GM-1.2 of City Plan establishes a set of criteria to be considered in reviewing proposed GMA amendments. These criteria are presented below along with a City staff analysis addressing each criterion. The proposed amendment is consistent with community goals, principles, and policies as expressed in City Plan. The initial version of City Plan (1997) contained the policy basis for establishing CPAs. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan's Policy FC-1-6 established the concept for this CPA as an area beyond the GMA which could conceivably be annexed into Fort Collins. One key principle for the CPA was to avoid "annexation wars" between Fort Collins and the other surrounding communities. Staff 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. 12. a. There is an intergovernmental agreement with the adjacent municipality pertaining to a growth management area and the GMA district is intended to implement the agreement; As indicated above, in 1999, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County signed an Intergovernmental Agreement establishing the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (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. Also, in 1999, a series of Intergovernmental Agreements involving the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Windsor, and Larimer County formally agreed to recognize the Fossil Creek CPA as being a logical extension of the Fort Collins GMA boundary and leading to eventual annexation of the area into Fort Collins. b. The area within the GMA district boundary is expected, by the parties, to be annexed within the time frame anticipated by the municipality's comprehensive plan; Fort Collins' City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, recently updated in May 2004, anticipates the annexation of the areas within the GMA. The County will be the key player in the City's annexation of property within the expansion area by not accepting development proposals on properties that have contiguity to the Fort Collins city limits. The City can not just unilaterally start annexing property in the expansion area. There have been discussions between City and County staff regarding the annexation of the County's Regional Park south of Fossil Creek Reservoir in order to create contiguity with many properties in the expansion area and, thus, set the stage for annexation. But, even the annexation of the regional park will not provide contiguity to all properties in the area. So, some properties may want to try to develop before the City has the necessary contiguity that would make the County require annexation. c. The municipality's comprehensive plan provides the county and property owners with clear guidance regarding the types and intensities of land uses intended for each parcel within the GMA district boundary. One of the major changes made in the update to City Plan in 2004, was the refinement of land use depictions on the City Structure Plan map (future land use map). Deleted from the former map were the "dots," "semi -circles" and other similar vague geometric shapes for the potential location of future land uses. These were replaced with more definitive shapes that corresponded better with roads, property boundaries, section lines, etc. Staff believes the Structure Plan now gives clear guidance regarding the types and intensities of land uses intended for each parcel on the map. d. The area within the GMA district can and will be served with urban level services, including, but not limited to, public sewer, public water, urban streets and urban fire protection. 11 (2) establishment of the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) as a future GMA boundary amendment area. The GMA boundary amendment to include all land north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west of I-25 was approved by both the City and County in 1999 and contained approximately 5 square miles, not counting the area covered by Fossil Creek Reservoir. An additional 2 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 1-25, Windsor agreed not to annex west of I-25, and Loveland agreed not to annex north of County Road 30. All parties agreed to recognize the Fossil Creek CPA as being a logical extension of the Fort Collins GMA boundary and leading to eventual annexation of the area into Fort Collins. Since the establishment of the IGAs between the City, the surrounding communities, and Larimer County, there has been increased development pressure on the properties adjacent to the I-25/SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange. Also, City 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. The AP district could allow uses by Special Review which would be incompatible with the uses called for in The Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland Open Space Corridor Plan and the Community Separator designation on the City's 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 R1, 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 into the City of Fort Collins. Larimer County GMA Amendment Criteria Section 4.2.1. of the Larimer County Land Use Code contains the County's regulations regarding the Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District. This section states that the County Commissioners may establish or enlarge a GMA district if an established set of review criteria are met. These criteria are presented below along with a staff analysis addressing each criterion. 10 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins May 3, 2005 Memorandum TO: Board of County Commissioners Larimer County Planning Commission FM: Ken Waido, Chief Plannet5gr011 QIZ4 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department RE: Amending the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) Boundary to Include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA). On May 11, the Board of County Commissioners and the Larimer County Planning Commission will conduct a joint study session and discuss a request to amend the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), an area of approximately 2 and '/4 square miles (see attached map). This memorandum presents some background information on the boundary amendment request. Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) History In March 1998,. the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County concluded a joint planning effort with the adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Plan was adopted as an element of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County Master 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 section 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 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aplanning@fcgov.com development plan which has not been filed at the time of the granting of the modification shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed one year following the determination of the county commissioners of the request for the proposed modification. (Res. No. 04292003R005, 4-29-2003; Res. No. 09162003R012, § 2, 9-16-03; Res. No. 10052004R001, Exh. A, 10-5-2004) the county commissioners may grant such modifications only in exceptional circumstances and only if they find that granting the modification will not be detrimental to the public good and that: 1. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions, such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner of the affected property, provided such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or 2. The alternative plan, as submitted, will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which modification is requested, equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standards for which modification is requested. In ascertaining the "public interests and purposes of the standards" the county commissioners shall give great weight to: a. The recommendation of the municipality; b. The specific language of the standard, taken in the context of the regulation in which the standard is contained and in the context of the applicable provisions of the municipality's comprehensive plan; and c. The willingness and agreement of the municipality to annex the subject area. A modification shall be processed and reviewed concurrently with the development application to which it applies. A modification may be processed separately from such development application only if the county planning director in his/her sole discretion determines there is adequate information to allow the modification to be evaluated separately from the development application. Applicants seeking a modification shall file a written request with the county planning director. The county planning director shall refer the application to the planning director of the municipality. The municipality shall provide a recommendation to the county within 21 days of receipt of the request. The Larimer County Planning Commission or other recommending board, per the applicable intergovernmental agreement, and the county commissioners shall hear the request in the public hearings set for the development application. If the county planning director has authorized the modification request to be processed separately from the development application, the applicable recommending board shall hear the request at the next available public hearing as determined by the planning director after receipt of the recommendation of the municipality, and the county commissioners shall hear the request at a public hearing no later than 21 days after receipt of the recommendation from the applicable recommending board. At the hearing, the county commissioners shall consider relevant information presented by the applicant, the municipality and interested members of the public. Based on the information, the county commissioners may grant the modification or grant the modification with conditions in accordance with the criteria contained in this section or deny the modification. If a modification is approved it shall be controlling for the successively, timely filed, development applications for that particular development proposal only to the extent that it modified the standard pertaining to such plan. All modifications which apply to a 7 d. In lieu of a denial of annexation by the municipality, the county commissioners accept the written determination by the designated representative of the municipality that the subject property owner(s) need not apply for annexation. 3. Any parcel within a GMA district may be used for any use which is designated a use allowed by right in the underlying zoning district. This does not apply to uses that involve land divisions, special review or any other decisions requiring discretionary review by the county commissioners. 4. Uses allowed only by special review in the underlying zoning district may be approved only if such uses are consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations to a GMA district. If no applicable supplementary regulations have been adopted, the review criteria for special review shall apply (subsection 4.5.3). Supplementary regulations do not apply to commercial mobile radio service facilities (section 16). 5. The underlying zoning of parcels within a GMA district may be rezoned only to the PD-planned development district. The PD-planned development rezoning application must specify the proposed land use types, densities and intensities. 6. In order to approve a rezoning to PD-planned development, the county commissioners must find the proposed rezoning meets the review criteria in subsection 4.4.4 of this code, and that the proposed land use type, density and intensity are consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations, if any. 7. The county shall not accept any applications for special exceptions in any GMA district. 8. All divisions of land to create new lots in GMA districts shall be submitted and processed as planned land divisions (subsection 5.2), minor land divisions (subsection 5.4) or rural land plans (5.8). No division of land to create new lots in GMA districts through the planned land division process shall be approved unless the county commissioners have approved a rezoning of the land to PD-planned development pursuant to subsection 4.2. LD.6 of this code. 9. Prior to final approval of a rezoning, special review, site plan review (section 6), planned land division, minor land division or rural land plan, the property owner shall provide a binding agreement for annexation. The agreement shall be in a form approved by the county and shall include a power of attorney authorizing the city or town clerk to execute and file annexation petitions and maps, and shall state that the property owner agrees to submit to the applicable municipality a petition for voluntary annexation at such time as the property becomes eligible for annexation according to state annexation laws. Such agreement shall be signed by the owner of the property, shall run with the land and shall be recorded in the office of the clerk and recorder of Larimer County with a copy forwarded to the applicable municipality. 10. The county shall submit, to the applicable municipality for review and comment, all proposals for rezoning, special review, minor land division, planned land division and rural land plan within the applicable GMA district. The county shall afford the municipality 21 days from the date of transmittal of the referral to provide written comments. E. Modifications of development standards required by supplementary regulations. Development standards in supplementary regulations to the GMA district may be modified if agreed upon in writing by the developer, county commissioners and the municipality. For proposed modifications not agreed to by the applicable municipality, M d. The area within the GMA district can and will be served with urban level services, including, but not limited to, public sewer, public water, urban streets and urban fire protection; and e. The review criteria for boundary or zone designation set forth in subsection 4.4.4(A) through (F) have been met. 4. The county commissioners may exclude an area from an established GMA district boundary following consultation with the municipality if the county commissioners find that one or more of the review criteria in subsection B.3 above can no longer be met or that the municipality is not complying with the intergovernmental agreement. C. Applicability. 1. The GMA districts are overlay zoning districts and shall be applied together with the underlying zoning district. 2. The provisions of this subsection 4.2.1 will apply in each GMA district. Supplementary regulations to a GMA district, herein referred to as supplementary regulations may be adopted which will apply only to a particular GMA district or to a limited, defined geographical area within a particular GMA district. 3. In the event of a conflict between the supplementary regulations, the provisions of subsection 4.2.1 or any other provisions of the land use code, the supplementary regulations shall prevail over the provisions of subsection 4.2.1 and the other provisions of the land use code; the provisions of subsection 4.2.1 shall prevail over the other provisions of the land use code. D. General requirements. 1. Except as provided in subsection D.2 below or as otherwise permitted by the supplementary regulations, the county shall not accept any application for a rezoning (PD-planned development), special review or planned land division: a. For any property in a GMA district which has any contiguity to the municipal limits and, thus, can be made eligible for voluntary annexation, whether through a series of annexations or otherwise. Instead the owner of such property shall be required to seek annexation to the municipality; or b. For any property in a GMA district, which was part of a parcel eligible for annexation as of December 18, 2000, but which is no longer eligible because of subsequent land divisions resulting in a break in contiguity, except land divisions created by court order from probate, dissolution of marriage or eminent domain proceedings; or c. Where the municipality denies the petition for annexation because: (1) The property owner has included conditions or requirements in the petition which the county deems to be unreasonable or unduly burdensome; or (2) The property owner refuses to agree to conditions or requirements imposed by the municipality as a condition of annexation which the county deems to be reasonable. 2. The county may accept applications for rezoning, special review or planned land division where: a. The subject parcel(s) has no contiguity to the municipal limits; or b. The municipality denies the petition for annexation for reasons other than those stated in subsection D.l.c(1) or (2) above; or c. The applicable supplementary regulations authorize the county to accept the application for rezoning, special review or planned land division. 5 County Land Use Code: GMA overlay zone district text: 4.2.1. Growth management area overlay zone district. A. Purpose. The purposes of growth management area overlay zone districts (GMA districts) are to: 1. Designate areas in the county adjacent to a municipality's corporate limits where urban level development and annexation are appropriate, and where development may have an impact on present and future municipal growth patterns; 2. Support a municipality's comprehensive plan within the GMA district; 3. Protect the health, safety and welfare of county residents by providing land use regulations and standards that cause development to occur consistent with a municipality's comprehensive plan for its GMA district to the extent deemed feasible by the county in consultation with the municipality; 4. Minimize urban services provided by the county by encouraging municipalities to annex land designated for urban uses and densities; 5. Facilitate the annexation of lands that have developed in the GMA district while under county jurisdiction; 6. Facilitate the annexation of lands that are eligible for annexation prior to the development of these lands; 7. Implement the guiding principles and implementation strategies of the county master plan regarding urban and rural land uses; 8. Establish county standards and criteria that are compatible with standards and criteria adopted by municipalities; and 9. Implement intergovernmental agreements with municipalities regarding growth management. B. Establishment and amendment of district boundaries. 1. In order to carry out the purposes of this section, the following zoning district classifications are established within Larimer County: a. The Fort Collins GMA district; b. The Loveland GMA district; and c. The Windsor GMA district. The term "GMA district" shall mean whichever of the above districts is applicable given the location of the subject site. 2. The boundaries of each GMA district are shown on the official zoning map adopted for Larimer County. 3. The county commissioners may establish or enlarge a GMA district if the following review criteria are met: a. There is an intergovernmental agreement with the adjacent municipality pertaining to a growth management area and the GMA district is intended to implement the agreement; b. The area within the GMA district boundary is expected, by the parties, to be annexed within the time frame anticipated by the municipality's comprehensive plan; c. The municipality's comprehensive plan provides the county and property owners with clear guidance regarding the types and intensities of land uses intended for each parcel within the GMA district boundary; y The Larimer County/Windsor IGA acknowledges that Windsor would not annex into any county -recognized CPA of another municipality (which the Fossil Creek CPA is). The above statements about the County/Loveland IGA are also the case in the County/Windsor IGA. Since the above are all in County -adopted documents, they reflect the County's position on the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange area west of I-25 and the expansion of the FC GMA into the FC CPA. On 3/30/05 the BCC gave staff direction that the process to follow for this matter is: 1. joint evening work session with BCC/PC 2. Planning Commission public hearing on the GMA overlay zone being applied to the expanded GMA area and existing the CPA overlay zone being repealed from the area (the text of the GMA overlay zone, including the review criteria for GMA expansion is included at the end of this staff report —see Sec 4.2.1.B.3). 3. BCC public hearing on a) the application of the GMA overlay zone to the expanded GMA area; b) the CPA overlay zone being repealed from the CPA area; c) with mutual agreement of the City, the repeal of the 2 party City of FC/Larimer County IGA regarding the FC CPA; and d) the IGA amendment expanding the GMA boundary. Any Supplementary Regulations would be considered for adoption later, if needed, and as soon as they are developed. The County's schedule is as follows: -BCC/PC work session, evening of Wed. May 11 -Planning Commission public hearing, evening of Wed. June 15 -County Commissioners public hearing, evening of Monday, July 11. Both City and County planning staff will be present at the May 11 BCC/PC work session to expand on this information and to reply to any questions. 3 The following are facts that pertain to and support these changes: One of the original intents of a municipality's Cooperative Planning Area is that it could eventually become part of that municipality's Growth Management Area. Both the GMA and CPA boundaries are intended to enable a municipality to "stake out" its future growth areas in hopes of using these tools to facilitate long range planning and to minimize or eliminate "annexation wars". The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, jointly adopted by the City and County, anticipated potential expansion of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) into the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA). The plan clearly it anticipates that the area could eventually be annexed to the City of Fort Collins. Seepage 41, FC-I-6.and page 46, Policy GM-1.3 See attached copies of these pages. Several intergovernmental agreements (Larimer County/Fort Collins IGA and the Fort Collins/Loveland/Windsor/Larimer County IGA) acknowledge that the Fossil Creek CPA area could be annexed into Fort Collins. The 4 party IGA says that no municipal annexations shall occur within the FC CPA except annexations to Fort Collins, and that the County agrees to oppose, by such means as it deems appropriate, any annexation into the FC CPA by any incorporated town or city. See attached copies of relevant pages from these IGAs. The Larimer County/Loveland IGA, adopted Jan. 12, 2004 (for 10 years), acknowledges that Loveland would not annex into any county -recognized CPA of another municipality (which the Fossil Creek CPA is). In that IGA, it is stated in Sec. 2.2 that lands in the Loveland CPA eventually may be annexed to the City of Loveland --so even in their IGA with the County, annexation of CPA areas is anticipated. Also, the County/Loveland IGA says in Sec. 3.3.6 that the City of Loveland will not annex into a GMA or CPA of another municipality if such area is recognized by the County. The County/Loveland IGA, in Sec. 3.37 says the City of Loveland will not annex property north of Co. Rd.30 unless the County either requires the landowner to petition for annexation or requests the City of Loveland consider annexation. See attached copy of relevant page from the LC/Loveland IGA. z LARIMER PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION COUNTY P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-7683 (970) 498-7700 Fax (970) 498-7711 http://www.larimer.org/planning May 2, 2005 Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners County Planning Commission Fm: Larry Timm, Planning Director Re: Staff Report for BCC/PC work session, May 11, 2005 City of Fort Collins Request to Expand Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary into Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) at Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The Fort Collins City Council has authorized the Mayor to sign a revised intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the County to expand the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) into most of the area now in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) south of the Fossil Creek Reservoir. City staff has requested that the County start the proceedings necessary to consider this objective. The major steps necessary for the City and County to take are as follows: -City and County jointly amend the current IGA by changing the GMA boundary to include the subject area; -City and County jointly negate the current City and County IGA pertaining to the FC CPA; -County apply its GMA overlay zone to the expanded GMA and repeal the CPA overlay zone from the current FC CPA area; -City amends its City Plan to include the expanded GMA; and -If needed, County adopts mutually acceptable Supplementary Regulations for the expanded GMA. %41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ' &Ien Joint Meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and the Plannin Commission 92005 Dinner at 5;30 pm:, Boyd La, e . onference Room Meetin2•at"6:00-mrit_ Hearina.Rnnm AGENDA TOPICS ?"- MAY 4 2005 I. Public Comment on the County Land Use Code- 2. County Response to Public Comments on the Land Use Code — none__'_:___.___-_:_-- 3. Fort Collins conversion of FC CPA to FC GMA — see attached 4. Red Feather Lakes Area Plan briefing 5. Discussion and direction regarding proposed Code Amendments: • Review criteria — see attached • Non -conformities — see attached • Storage buildings and garages — see attached COPYRECENED BY ALl COMMISROIJERS UPCOMING MEETINGS/HEARINGS: • No Planning Commission Hearing on May 18, 2005 • No BCC/PC Work Session in June 2005 • June 1, 2005 — Planning Commission Hearing • June 15, 2005 — Planning Commission Hearing CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION LARIMER COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Date: March 31, 2005 From: Candace Phippen, Building Code Enforcement Officer To: Al Kadera, Principal Planner Re: Storage Buildings Converted to Dwellings You asked for some information on the number of cases involving the conversion of detached accessory buildings into dwelling units or businesses without first obtaining building permits. I did not review our entire database of building code violations, however, I did spot check the database to get a feeling of how many of these types of cases occur. I also reviewed all cases opened in 2005. Based on my quick review of the database and 2005 cases, I estimate that approximately 20% of our cases involve these types of issues. There are probably twice as many or more out there not of record. For 2005, 12 out of 64 building code violation cases involve some type of conversion of storage/garage space to living quarters or commercial businesses without a building permit. See a summary of these cases below. The most serious aspect of converting storage buildings to dwelling or commercial units without building permits is that the conversion often creates substandard, potentially dangerous housing or inadequate structures for public access, which can lead to tragic results. Ron Crego took some photographs of sample accessory structures that contain dwelling units and businesses which are attached. These issues have been resolved or are currently being investigated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. PERMIT ADDRESS OWNER 05-BV0007 1215 Three Creek Pass, RFL Haas 05-BV0014 3812 Post Rd., Laporte Tarvin 05-BV0016 11420NCR 17, Wellington Meyer 05-BV0017 Section21-12-75 Shaw 05-BV0024 1616 S. Horseshoe, Longmont Nobilette 05-BV0027 5320 Lone Tree Dr., Loveland Hincjos 05-BV0037 808 Ptmarigan, FTC Anderson 05-BV0041 4310 WCR 4, Berthoud Finnegan 05-BV0049 2502 SCR 14, Loveland Ward 05-BV0059 2000 SCR 29, Loveland McHugh 05-BV0062 2801 Hearthstone, FTC Splittgerber 05-BV0063 635 SCR 31, Berthoud Sprague cc: Tom Garton, Building Official DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION No permit for shed converted to fishing cabin No permit for apartment in ag building Complaint that storage building is being occupied No permit for shed converted to cabin Bike repair business in garage and apartment in upper level Permit to alter garage to livng space voided Detached garage with bathroom Garage alteration to living space No permit for business use in 12,000 sq.ft. storage building Using storage building for woodworking business. Business above garage Two illegal conversions: apartment in bam and apartment in basement Alternative Solutions A. Allow them. 1. The Building Department would need to aggressively pursue enforcement when a storage building is converted to a dwelling or illegally modified. 2. If built before the residence, not allow plumbing or heat, unless this is allowed by the subdivision covenants. 3. Only allow for storage of personal property of the lot owner. B. Not allow them. Existing buildings, built with a building permit become non- conforming. Size If storage buildings and garages are allowed prior to the residence A. Limit lot coverage to 10% of the lot for "Ag" property B. Limit of 800 square feet for non "Ag" property. An appeal could be submitted concerning the "Ag" designation or the size limit. This appeal would go to the County Commissioners C. Site Plan Review would not be required. We also need to review the lot coverage percentage. Currently the Code limits lot coverage for accessory buildings to 10% of the lot. On a one acre lot the owner could have up to 4,356 square feet of detached storage buildings or garages, in addition to the dwelling. As the lots get larger this limitation seems to be out of proportion to the possible use of the property. On 35 acres there could be 3.5 acres or 152,460 square feet of detached buildings. This limitation is more important with much smaller residential lots. A 7,000 square foot lot will likely have a dwelling with an attached garage and there could also be a 700 square foot detached building or what amounts to a two -car garage. This leaves very little area for yards, gardens and space between buildings, which results in a very crowded appearance on the property. This is probably not what most residential neighborhoods would want to see. It might make more sense to limit the square footage of detached accessory buildings on lots of %2 acre or less or maybe one acre or less. Storage Buildings and Garages Following our discussion at the February work session, the Planning staff met to see if we could better define the issues. The information provided by the Building Department concerning violations was most interesting. Obviously there is a problem with conversions of these buildings and the more permits we issue for these types of buildings, the bigger the enforcement problem becomes. However, the enforcement problems are not limited to storage buildings on lots with no residence. The other major issue concerns the size of storage buildings and garages. Staff previously suggested 800 square feet as a reasonable size limitation because most detached two car garages are about 24 feet by 30 feet which comes out to 720 square feet. Staff Discussion of the Problem, Causes and Solutions Problem Some of these buildings become residential or commercial uses without first obtaining a building permit and altering the building to meet Building Code requirements. As of March 31, 2005 there were 64 building code violation cases referred to the Building Department this year and 12 of those cases were storage buildings converted to residential or commercial uses with out a building permit. (See attached report) A storage building or garage on a lot without a residence often becomes an attractive nuisance. One of the Sheriff's investigators indicated that a fairly large percentage of his investigations for break-ins are on parcels with no residence or an unoccupied residence. Historically, some of the mountain subdivisions allow recreational uses on vacant lots. There is a demand for storage buildings on these lots, often with no intention of ever building a residence. (Crystal Lakes is the most prominent of these subdivisions). The Land Use Code currently conflicts with reality. We have issued permits for storage buildings with a two year time limit for building the residence. Enforcement of the deadline will present a political problem. Causes The covenants in some subdivisions encourage the use (Crystal Lakes). Some property owners want a storage building prior to the residence to store construction materials and equipment or recreational equipment. This is often characterized as.a property rights issue. Political issue -It is difficult to say no. '/7 Section 12.2.8 would suggest that the Board ofAdjustment has authority over nonconforming issues. I believe this will be cleaned up when this section is amended to reflect that the BOA 's jurisdictionlduties will only include variances for bulk requirements due to topographical conditions and hearing appeals for very limited types of decisions. I recommend that issues involving nonconforming signs be specifically dealt with in the sign code. The footnoted Cross -Reference in Section 4.8 should include this notation. I don't believe there needs to be a provision in Section 4.8 that addresses appeals. I am anticipating that the new appeal section would provide for two types of appeals to the BCC. Appeals where the a person disagrees with a decision made concerning the administration, interpretation or enforcement of any provision of the code and appeals where a person seeks approval to deviate from or have waived any standard or requirement of the code. This appeals section would therefore cover any issues that come up under Section 4.8. For example, if the planning director determines that a nonconforming use has changed in character such that BCC approval is needed and the property owner disagrees, the property owner could appeal that issue to the BCC. If the planning director determines that a nonconforming use has been discontinued for 12 months and the property owner disagrees, the property owner can appeal to the BCC. Section 4.8 requires a property owner to obtain a building permit within 12 months after a calamity. If the property owner wants to deviate from this requirement, i.e., have 15 months to get a building permit, he can appeal to the BCC to modify this requirement. I'm not tied into the review criteria for expansions/enlargements, etc. My thought was, however, not to list so many criteria or make them so specific that it would hamper the BCC's flexibility to grant or deny these. The criteria concerning whether the request will impair the intent or purpose of the code takes into account a host of issues and concerns and allows the BCC to customize its decision to the specific situation. Jshdocs/county/LUC changes re nonconformities N/o C. The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will not impair the intent and purpose of this code and the master plan. 4.8.14. Conditions of approval The county commissioners may impose conditions on a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure to accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan; prevent or mitigate adverse effects on the public, neighborhoods, utilities and county facilities; and ensure compatibility of land uses. These conditions may include a requirement that some or all elements of the nonconforming use and/or that some or all areas of a nonconforming building, structure or site be brought into compliance with the standards and requirements of this code. 4.8.15. Process All applications for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure require a pre -application conference and county commissioner review. The Planning Director may require a neighborhood meeting if he/she determines that the meeting would benefit the county commissioners' review of the application. Each of these processes is described in Section 12.2 (development review procedures). 4.8.12. Nonconforming Lots A. A nonconforming lot is a lot, parcel or tract of land that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this code and: Was created by deed or other instrument of property transfer signed before May 5,1972; or 2. Was approved by the county commissioners on or after May 5, 1972; or 3. Appears on a final plat of record approved by the appropriate authority at the time the plat was recorded. (See definitions, legal lot). B. Nonconforming lots must meet all requirements of this code except minimum lot size and minimum lot width -to -depth ratio. Comments: ,Section 12.2.7. will need to be changed to include in the list of duties the BCC's duties. H5 C. A use that is nonconforming because it has been changed by regulation from a use by right to a use by special review or a use by minor special review cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without special review or minor special review approval by the board of county commissioners in Section 4.5. In determining whether to approve the special review or minor special review, the county commissioners will consider the entire use, not just the elements of the use sought to be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character. D. In determining whether there has been a change in character of a use, building or structure, the following criteria must be considered: Whether there has been a change in the nature, volume, intensity, frequency, quality or degree of the use, building or structure. (For example, has there been a significant increase in the number of employees or traffic volume; has there been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimensions of the building or structure been increased); 2. Whether there has been a change in the activity, products or services. (For example, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplied could be considered a change in the character of the use). 3. Whether the new use, building or structure reflects the nature and purpose of the prior use or structure. (For example, an air strip used for seasonal crop dusting operations that is subsequently used only for recreational parasailing could be considered a change in the character of the use); 4. Whether the new use is different in kind on its effect on the neighborhood. (For example, has there been a change in environmental influences on the neighborhood, such as light, noise or air quality). 4.8.13. Review Criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure. Except for requests involving special reviews or minor special reviews pursuant to Section 4.18.12.13, to approve a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria: A. The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood. B. The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will not adversely affect property values in the area affected by the proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change. A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used and occupied. Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming building or structure are allowed. A nonconforming building or structure may not, however, be repaired or altered in a way that would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to this code. 4.8.9. Destruction. A. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed (i.e., incurs damages of more than 50 percent of the building or structure's replacement cost) by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, other than a flood, the property owner may repair or replace the nonconforming building or structure, provided that he/she submits a complete building permit application within 12 months of the calamity. The nonconforming building or structure may only be replaced in the same location and size as the original building or structure. Nonconforming buildings or structures damaged or destroyed by flood must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district). B. If a building or structure containing a nonconforming use is destroyed by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, the property owner may reestablish the nonconforming use and may repair or replace the building or structure, provided that he/she submits a complete building permit application within 12 months of the calamity. The building or structure which contained a nonconforming use may only be replaced in the same location and size as the original building or structure and may not be replaced in a manner that extends, expands, enlarges or changes the character of the nonconforming use (see Subsection 4.8.10.1)). 4.8.10. Extension, expansion, enlargement or change in character. A. A nonconforming use or a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the county commissioners. B. A nonconforming building or structure cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the county commissioners except where the building is nonconforming only as to a required setback and the following conditions are met: The proposed addition is not more than 25 percent of the square footage Of the original building and is not more than 1,000 square feet; 2. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation. y3 4.8 Nonconformities 4.8.1 Purpose This section governs uses, building and structures (except signs), and lots that were legally established prior to the adoption of this code but that do not comply with one or more requirements of this code. The provisions of this section are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing and putting to productive use nonconforming uses, buildings, structures and lots while also encouraging as many aspects of such uses, buildings, structures and lots to be brought into conformance with this code as is reasonably practicable. 4.8.2 Nonconforming use. A nonconforming use is an existing use that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the use commenced. 4.8.3. Nonconforming building or structure. A nonconforming building or structure is an existing building or structure that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the building or structure was constructed. 4.8.4. Continuation of a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may be continued. Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use are allowed. Normal or routine repairs and maintenance do not include any repairs or maintenance that enlarge a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use. 4.8.5. Substitution of uses. A nonconforming use may not be replaced by another nonconforming use. 4.8.6. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than 12 consecutive months, the use may not be reestablished without approval by the County Commissioners. If a question arises as to whether a nonconforming use has been discontinued, the property owner has the burden to show by competent evidence that the nonconforming use has not been discontinued. 4.8.7. Continuation of nonconforming building or structure. yz cost to the property owners until property owners demonstrate they can adequately maintain the property. 6.4. REVIEW CRITERIA for Site Plan To approve a site plan application, the planning director must #+nd4he-fallowing nditions existconsider the following review criteria: A. The site plan complies with all applicable requirements standards imposed by-2of this code and any applicable supplementary regulations; and B. The site plan complies with all conditions of approval imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board under another approval process authorized by this code. Add a new section 22.2.5 Review Criteria for Appeals from Section 10 (Signs) 22.2.5 Appeals from Section 10 (Signs) To approve an appeal from the applicable requirements in Section 10 of this Code the County Commissioners must consider the following review criteria: A. Approval of the appeal is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Code; B. There are extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the site which would result in a peculiar or undue hardship on the property owner if Section 10 of this Code is strictly enforced; C. Approval of the appeal would not result in an economic or marketing advantaoe over other businesses which have siens which comply with Section 10 of this Code. yi B. All appFopf:iate agensies have been neti4ied ef the proposed right Of Wa)' Of easement vaeation and nefte have The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered; and C. TheAnx-right-of-way that is vacated will be divided equally between the lots on each side, unless it can be demonstrated that all of the right-of-way was originally taken from one parcel. In that case, the right-of-way will be returned to that parcel. Property owners on each side of the right-of-way may agree to divide the vacated right-of-way differently but must sign deeds to transfer ownership after the county commissioners approve the vacation. 5.10.3. Plat vacation review criteria. To approve a proposed plat vacation, the county commissioners must find the fellewiag eenditieas existconsider the following review criteria: A. Vacation of the plat will not leave any lots without adequate utility or drainage easements; B. Vacation of the plat will not vacate road rights -of -way or access easements needed to access other property; C. Vacation of the plat will not inhibit the provision of adequate public facilities or services to other property as required by this code; and D. Vacation of the plat is consistent with the master plan. 5.10.4. Resubdivision review criteria. A resubdivision of existing lots requires review and approval through the applicable land division process. Review criteria are listed in the applicable sections of this code. 5.12.4. Review criteria for a Condominium Map To approve a condominium map, the county commissioners must €�anW4he-ol4ewiiig eenditiens-e�consider the following review criteria: A. The proposed uses in the condominium units are consistent with existing zoning of the site; B. The site complies with sections 8.5 (landscaping); 8.6 (off-street parking standards); and 8-410 (signs); C. The condominium map complies with the monumentation and plat preparation standards required by state statute; and D. The applicant has submitted property owners association documents or their equivalent that address the unit owners' rights and responsibilities with respect to parking, loading and access facilities, landscaping, utilities and any other common areas and facilities on the site. The documents must also provide for perpetual maintenance of common facilities by property owners. If property owners fail to adequately maintain the common facilities, the county commissioners may take over maintenance and charge the HD E. The boundary line adjustment will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building. 5.6.3. Review criteria for Add -On Agreement. To approve an add -on agreement, the planning director must find the following eenditions exist-onsider the following review criteria: A. The lots being combined are legal lots as defined in the definitions section. An illegally -created lot can be combined with one or more existing legal lots, if the planning director determines the resultant lot or lots are consistent with the intent and purpose of this code; B. The add -on agreement will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights -of -way serving the property or other properties in the area; and C. The add -on agreement will not result in a nonconformity. For example, an add -on agreement that results in two principal buildings on one lot is not allowed. 5.7.3. Review criteria for Amended Plat. To approve a proposed amended plat, the county commissioners must find the fellowing eenditions wdstconsider the following review criteria: A. No newadditional lots will be created by the amended plat. B. The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district and the lot dimension ratio required by subsection 8.14.2.LK. If any of the lots are nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot size or the lot dimension ratio, the amended plat must not increase the nonconformity. C. The amended plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building; D. The amended plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights -of -way serving the property or other properties in the area; and E. Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat. 5.9.3. Review criteria for Easement or Right of Way Vacation. To approve a right-of-way or easement vacation, the county commissioners must find the fenowi g eendi*i^n^ exiqt onsider the following review criteria: A. Approval of the vacation request will not leave any land adjoining the right-of-way without an established public road or private access easement connecting the land with another established public road, or without utility or drainage services; 3. The proposed conservation development will result in no substantial negative etTee4impact on environmentally sensitive areas or features, agricultural uses or other lands; {andl 4. The proposed eensef-vatien development will net adverse!), affeet speeiai plaees in. laFiMOF Geenty.Approval of the proposed Conservation Development will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the proposed Conservation Development: and 5. The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered. 5.4.3. Review criteria for Minor Land Division To approve a minor land division, county commissioners must F •a'"�ng consider the following review criteria: A. The property is not part of an approved or recorded subdivision plat; B. The property is not part of an exemption or minor residential development approved under the previous subdivision resolution or a minor land division; C. The newly -created parcels will meet the minimum lot size required by the applicable zoning district. For uses resulting in a significant public benefit, such as a fire station, the county commissioners may wai-vet rant an appeal from -the minimum lot size and minimum lot width to depth ratio requirements, provided the proposed use meets minimum setbacks and sewage disposal requirements; D. The newly -created parcels meet minimum access standards required by the county engineer or the Colorado Department of Transportation as applicable; and E. Approval of the minor land division will not result in impacts greater than those of existing uses. However, impacts from increased traffic to a public use may be offset by the public benefit derived from such use. 5.5.3. Review criteria for Boundary Line Adjustment To approve a boundary line adjustment, the planning director must find -the -follewin eenditiens existconsider the following review criteria: A. The lots are legal lots as defined in the definitions section; B. No newadditional lots will be created by the boundary line adjustment; C. The lots are not in a subdivision, planned unit development, minor residential development, or exemption approved under previous subdivision regulations or in a minor land division, subdivision, conservation development or planned land division; D. The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size and lot width to depth ratio standards of the applicable zoning district. (If either or both lots are nonconforming with respect to minimum lot size or lot width to depth ratio, the boundary line adjustment must not increase the nonconformity); and 5.1.3. Review criteria for Subdivisions. To approve a subdivision, the county commissioners must find the following cenditien exist: consider the following review criteria: A. The proposed subdivision is compatible with existing and }rritteclallowed land uses in the surrounding area; B. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed subdivision can and will comply eemplies with with all standards applicable requirements of this code and with all othe regulationsfederal, state and eount), laws and ; C. The proposed subdivision will not adversely aMet speeial plaees in hafiffw 6ee�-The recommendations ofreferral agencies have been considered; and D. Approval of the proposed subdivision will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision. 5.2.3. Review criteria for Planned Land Division To approve a planned land division appksatioiq the county commissioners must findthe fellewing ,.enditions exist: must consider the following review criteria: A. The planned land division complies with the applicable supplementary regulations of the GMA district. if any, or the LaPorte Area Plan, as applicable. B. The planned land division is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area; C. The -Applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will complyies with all standards and teeh applicable requirements of this c-Code;-arA ,.;A, all ether l Aeral state and county 1.,..... and regulations; and D. The county commissioners have approved a rezoning of the land to PD-planned development; E. The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered; and F. Approval of the proposed Planned Land Division will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicini of the proposed Planned Land Division.7 5.3.4. Review criteria for Conservation Development A. To approve a conservation development, county commissioners must find the following eenditions exis consider the following review criteria: 1. The proposed conservation development is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area; 2. The applicant For the proposed conservation development has demonstrated that the proposed conservation development will complyies with all s'a Rams-rmd- applicable requirements of this code and with " nZer. federal, state and eetinty laws and regulations; 37 A. There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested; B. The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner; C. The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the eCode listed abek, W8HId depFiVO the applioant of Fights eammenI5, ef�eyed by other land in the area or land with the same b would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship; D. Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure; E. Granting the variance will not adverselyresult in a substantial adverse affectimpact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure; and F. Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the master plan; -and G. The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered 4.7.3. Review criteria for Special Exceptions To approve a special exception application, the boar's of adj •'--•• nt •A••^t find thL following eenditio s exis county commissioners must consider the following review criteria: A. The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood; B. The prepesed use will not ei(eeed air-, watef, edei- of noise standards established by eetinty, federal b ' ' , The recommendations from referral a-,encies have been considered; C. The proposed use will notadveFsely-result in a substantial adverse impact affect on other property values in the immediate the vicinity area of the subject property; D. The r ...r..se. diise ;n ,I h n c h a a n ^...PJ _l 'Jo state and federal r gul ,tiensiThe applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this Code; and E. The proposed use will Hot adverse!), affiaet special plaees in itrter-Coma ,d FE. The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands. F. Natural hazards on the site, including flood plains, will not adversely affect the proposed use. Natural hazards may be mitigated pursuant to the natural hazard area regulations in Section 8.3. Flood plain restrictions are included in Subsection 4 2 2 of this Code: G. There is reasonable justification for the use being at the proposed location rather than in a municipality or where zoning would allow the sue by right or by Special Review: and H. The nature of the proposed use and its operations are such that there are significant benefits to the public to be located where proposed D. Outside a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the county master plan. Within a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations to the GMA district, or if none, with the county master plan. E. The proposed use Will not exeeed aif, watei-, edef or noise standards esiab! 'shed by state er edeeral laden.; -o:....,, .. .., �gu,a�a,TThe applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code F. The proposed use will not adve~s ;aet result in a substantial adverse impact on property values in the are affeeted-hy-the proposed rise vicinity of the subject property; and G. The proposed use will eemply Nvith iremeff8-&f hi&C-o .a,',_app}ieable The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered. 4.5.5. Review criteria for minor special review applications. To approve a minor special review application the county commissioners must find the following 6anditions exist: onsider the following review criteria: A. The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands; B. Natural hazards on the site, including flood plains, will not adversely affect the proposed use. Natural hazards may be mitigated pursuant to the natural hazard area regulations in section 8.3. Flood plain restrictions are included in subsection 4.2.2 of this Code; C. The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood; D. Outside a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the county master plan. Within a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations to the GMA district, or if none, with the county master plan. E. The proposed use will not exceed air, watej-, odor or noise standaFds established by staff er federal ~ .glad...; The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this Code- F. The proposed use will not adversely of ee result in a substantial adverse impact on other property values in the area a€feeted-bwthe-pr-opesed-usevicinity of the subject property; and G. Tle-p. �a.d �ill C^:pay with ag+mements-af-thiscde-aid-all appxiror atle state and feae fal regulations; -The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered. 4.6.3. Review criteria for Zoning Variances To approve a zonin variance application, the board of adjustment must find the fia lie o onsider the following review criteria: 36 B. The proposed change is necessary to correct an omission or error in the code. 4.4.4. Review criteria for zone or overlay zone district boundary or zone designation changes. To approve an amendment to the zoning district boundaries, overlay district boundaries or zone designation of a parcel on the official zoning map, the county commissioners must find the fbilovVilig the following review criteria: A. The proposed change is consistent with the master plan; B. The proposed change is compatible with existing and allowed uses on properties in the neighborhood and is the appropriate zoning for the property; C. Conditions in the neighborhood have changed to the extent that the proposed change is necessary; D. The proposed change does not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; E. The proposed change addresses a community need; and F. The proposed change results in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood. G. In order to approve a rezoning to PD-planned development district, the subject parcel must be within a growth management area overlay zone district or the LaPorte Plan Area, and the county commissioners must also find that the proposed land use type, density and intensity are consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations ,, •f anv, or with the LaPorte Area Plan. H. In order to establish or enlarge a GMA district, the county commissioners must also find that the criteria in subsection 4.2.1.B.3 have been met. I. The county commissioners may exclude or remove an area from an established GMA district boundary if they find one or more of the review criteria in subsection ,, n ., A through c .,bov@ of in subsection 4.2.I.B.3 can no longer be met. 4.5.3. Review criteria for special review applications. To approve a special review application, the county commissioners must find the fellowing eenditions exisiconsider the following review criteria:. A. The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands; B. Natural hazards on the site, including flood plains, will not adversely affect the proposed use. Natural hazards may be mitigated pursuant to the natural hazard area regulations in section 8.3. Flood plain restrictions are included in subsection 4.2.2 of this Code; C. The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood; 3q Land Use Code Review Criteria Each process in the Code has a set of review criteria. These criteria were assembled by the Steering Committee (Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners) as each section of the Code was written. There is some redundancy in the criteria which was intentional on the part of the Steering Committee. The original review criteria included a reference to wetlands, wildlife and hazard areas, as well as, a criterion that required compliance with all applicable requirements of the Code. Do we want to continue this redundancy and, if we do, should these criteria appear in all the applicable sections rather than just a few? These criteria currently appear only in the Special Review, Minor Special Review and Special Exception sections of the Code. The two criteria in question are as follows: A. The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands. B. Natural hazards on the site, including flood plains, will not adversely affect the proposed use. Natural hazards may be mitigated pursuant to the natural hazard area regulation sin Section 8.3. Flood plain restrictions are included in Subsection 4.2.2 of this Code. The rest of the changes proposed in this Code amendment are intended to clear up some of the controversy we have seen recently with respect to review criteria. When the Code was written, there was no intention that every single criterion would apply to every application. The text in the Code, however, makes it appear otherwise. The proposed changes will give the decision makers more discretion in the application of the review criteria and avoid this confusion in the future. Add a new subsection 2.6 to read as follows: Review criteria are included in this Code for each type of development application. Because Latimer County is a diverse area in terms of topography, land use types densities and public facilities, the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Adjustment recognize that all review criteria will not be applicable to all development applications. Requiring compliance with all review criteria, in certain situations, would be meaningless and would not further the intent and purpose of this Code. In these situations the Commissioners and the Board of Adjustment, in their sole discretion, will determine which review criteria apply to a development review application. 3.8.2. Review criteria for changing the code text. To approve a change in the land use code text, the county commissioners must find tke following ,.audition.. exi «consider the following review criteria: A. The proposed change is consistent with the master plan and the intent and purpose of this code; and/or 3 W5 Figure 1 illustrates examples of parcels with and without "any contiguity" with the City for the purposes of this Agreement. (Note: "Any contiguity" in such instances does not need to be 1/61h contiguity as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes.) • Parcel A has contiguity at a point. • Parcel B has contiguity along a portion of its perimeter, even though separated by a body of water. • Parcel C does not'have contiguity • Parcel D has Contiguity because existing right-of-way does not affect contiguity. • Parcel E has contiguity at a point because existing right-of-way does not affect contiguity. 3.3.4 In the case of lands withirt the GMA that are not OligibloJor annexation and far which. the owner(s) have submitted an application identified in 3.3.3 above, or an application for a Site Plan or Minor Land Division, the County wilktequire a binding annexation agreement as a condition of approval. The Loveland City Attorney and the Larimer County Attorney shall approve the standard form of the annexation agreement. 3.3.5 The City shall promptly forward to the County minutes from the meeting of the City Council regarding the denial of any annexation petition in the GMA. If the City denies an annexation petition, the County shall process the development proposal according to the requirements of the GMA Overlay Zone District, and will require a binding annexation agreement a!" acondition of approval. 3.3.6 The City will not annex into a Growth Management Area, Cooperative Planning 410-- Area, or other comparable planning area of another municipality if such area is officially recognized in. an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County, unless: (i) Loveland has an intergovernmental agreement with that municipality that provides for Loveland to annex into the Cooperative Planning Area; or (ii) the . land to be annexed by Loveland has been disconnected from another. municipality. Larimer County shall use reasonable efforts to involve Loveland in the development of any intergovernmental agreements with other municipalities, which affect growth management and growth boundaries and Cooperative Planning Areas. Larimer County shall not enter into an intergovernmental agreement with another municipality to officially recognize a Growth Management Area or Cooperative Planning Area or other comparable planning area of another municipality where such area encroaches into the Loveland GMA as depicted by Exhibit 1 of this Agreement, Loveland will use reasonable efforts to reach intergovernmental agreements with other municipalities to such effect in order to manage conflicts concerning appropriate growth areas and municipal boundaries. 3.3.7 To the extent permitted by law, the City will not annex property north of County Road 410� 30 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 of publicly owned open space, trails or parklands. 9 32 ATTEST: City Clerk , APPRO D AS TO FORM: City Attorney eckp ys "SRAt '•�TTESTr' tea:• .... ,� City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Town Clerk l THE CITY OF FORT A Municipal Corporat U-m COLORADO THE CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO A Mur icip . Corporation ((�� Mayor THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation Mayor , ocop-pok4T SEAL �Q Page 3 of 4 31